Holy Cow! It’s Vern’s Review Of LIFE FREE OR DIE HARD! Did He Like It Or Not?!?!

Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.
I haven’t seen this one yet. Almost went to a midnight show tonight, but it just didn’t time out right. But honestly, you guys don’t care what I have to say about this. You probably don’t care what Quint or Harry have to say, either. Or Capone. Or Massawyrm. Or anyone here at the site except for one man... the guy whose original rant about the PG-13 rating ended up summoning Bruce “Walter B” Willis out of the ether in one of the craziest talkback moments of all time.
Yes, that’s right. It’s time for Vern’s review of LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD. Which means it’s time for me to piss off and hand over the stage to him:

"No one has that power. There is a much more powerful guy in Hollywood, and his name is Rupert Murdoch. It's his corporation. I only work there." --Bruce Willis to Vanity Fair, on not being able to do an R-rated DIE HARD
"This city is like a big CHICKEN, waiting to get PLUCKED." --SCARFACE, edited for TV version
Fellas--
DIE HARD, the motion picture, characters and their likenesses, are the copyrighted intellectual property of the Twentieth Century Fox Corporation. To them DIE HARD is a franchise, a license, a property, a brand, a tentpole, a consumer product, an opportunity for cross promotion with Arby's and whichever candy bar it was. To them DIE HARD is a dollar amount for an opening weekend, a domestic gross balanced against a marketing budget. But to the rest of the world, to the people with beating hearts, DIE HARD is something more.
There's alot of ways you can interpret those two words. I used to think it had something to do with the saying "old habits die hard." But it sounds more like a command, like it's telling you to DIE HARD. If you believe in something, die standing up, die with your boots on. Or in this case with your shoes off. Die hard.
I never really thought of it as a noun, like "John McClane is such a die hard," but that might make the most sense. If you look up "die hard" on dictionary.com (this new one's about computers so why not) it tells you it's "a person who vigorously maintains or defends a seemingly hopeless position, outdated attitude, lost cause, or the like." Obviously that describes McClane to a T. He's a die hard who dies hard.
Whatever the title was originally supposed to mean, over the past almost two decades it has taken on a new meaning. Of course you've got the "DIE HARD on a blank" method of describing a movie where one man is forced to sneak around whatever the blank is to foil a terrorist attack. But to me anyway DIE HARD is more than just a premise or a formula. DIE HARD describes the attitude and tone of the movie. Like John McClane, DIE HARD has little patience for bullshit, a high tolerance for pain, and now it has a machine gun, ho ho ho. There is no such thing as DIE HARD lite, or DIE HARD medium, or a DIE HARD that pulls a few punches. There is only DIE HARD. You can't put DIE HARD in a box or a cage, because we have known from the beginning that walls cannot contain DIE HARD. To my dying day, whether that day is hard or regular, I will remember the newspaper ad that promised "It will blow you through the back of the theater!" and included a diagram of how exactly this would work. You hear that? DIE HARD is not balls to the wall action - DIE HARD is action that actually knocks your balls THROUGH the wall. That's just how it works. Be careful with the balls.
But now here we are in 2007 and even Walter B. Willis, John Ma(gunshot)Clane himself, cannot sneak around and pick off Fox executives one by one to foil their plan to build walls around DIE HARD, or to reinforce the back wall of the theater so nobody gets blown through it. As you can see in that quote above, Bruce felt an R-rating was a seemingly hopeless position, but he did not vigorously defend it like a die hard. In that article there's a funny story about a Fox executive giving Bruce notes about the Kevin Smith scenes and Bruce listens and then says, "Let me ask you a question: Who's your second choice to play John McClane?" Unfortunately it was a bad play, he should've saved that card for the rating.
Because I believe they really did make a DIE HARD movie here. Obviously, it's not as good as DIE HARD. Nothing is. But if you like the sequels, this is in the same tradition, and it earns the description DIE HARD. Almost. I think. In my PG-13 DIE HARD rant I asked Fox, and by extension all mankind, not to be Ellis, the smarmy yuppie sellout bastard who tries to betray McClane to Grueber to save his own ass. But clearly those mister falcons are Ellis. Every last one of them is Ellis, holding the can of Coke and giving the thumbs up and everything. But they don't want to be Ellis, they want to be Grueber, so they are holding the real LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD hostage, saving the real movie that has blood and falcon-bombs for DVD so at that time you can be blown through the back of your apartment and lose your security deposit.
So, my friends, I dearly wish we were not in this ridiculous situation. I wish they had just done the right thing and released the movie as it was obviously meant to be, so I could recommend this movie without reservations or caveats or what have yous. I mean how ludicrous is it that we are actually put into the position of explaining how a flippin DIE HARD movie is "really violent... for PG-13!" and "pushes the limits... of PG-13!"
It's preposterous and it's sad and it's a bad omen that we have found ourselves here, but it could've been worse. The movie could've sucked. But I am relieved to be able to tell you that, despite everything going against it, LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD is a pretty damn entertaining movie. It could and should be harder. But it's fun, it has a good villainous plot, it has many intense and well constructed action sequences, and other than the rating and Kevin Smith it manages to overcome most of the worries I had about the movie.
Hey, you skipped over all that preamble stuff to find out if I liked it or not. That's cheating. Show me some respect man I'm a god damn artist. I was trying to create suspense and what not.
Anyway I guess I might as well go through piece by piece.
JOHN McCLANE.
I think they could've done more visually to show us this is our man John McClane. I understand the baldness, but he's wearing sort of a hip leather jacket that does not remind me of that working joe we love. So he looks different, and we must assume that he has become a Jehovah's Witness since there is no mention of his alcoholism, he never smokes and somebody cleaned his mouth out with soap. It's sad, like how Prince stopped swearing so he doesn't perform "Sexy MF" anymore. Good for you, John, getting off the booze, but we want to hear that song. Are you worried your grandma is watching this or something? You're not as fun that way.
So that makes it hard to recognize McClane at first, but this is definitely McClane, with the same sense of humor, cynicism and with the WITH A VENGEANCE powers to manipulate vehicles and withstand vicious falls and hits. The super hero business comes in mostly at the end when they get to that jet fighter you probaly saw on the commercials - that was a pretty big leap into ridiculousness. The rest of the movie is a little more grounded, in my opinion. And I'm happy to report that unlike WITH A VENGEANCE there is not a moment when you think he should just go home and let the professionals take over. This time around the philosophy is that if somebody else could do it he would be happy to go home, but he knows nobody else can do it. The fact that he is the one chasing these "cyberterrorists" and doing a better job than all the other government agencies seems absurd, but they use the almost-convincing trick of mentioning Hurricane Katrina. When you think of it that way you realize hey, it's true, maybe McClane really is the only one who's gonna have his crud together.
MAC KID.
I was as worried as anybody. I don't think McClane needs a wacky sidekick. I like McClane isolated, using a radio to talk to his allies on the outside or to taunt his adversaries. The guy doesn't need company. And if he must have a sidekick, how are you gonna top Samuel L. Jackson? You're not. This comic relief sidekick crap is more like the UNDER SIEGE movies, where Casey Ryback has to protect Erika Eleniak and Morris Chestnutt and teach them how to shoot a gun. Luckily, Justin Long (who plays a hacker McClane is protecting from people trying to kill him) is much less annoying than either one of those characters. In fact, I thought he was pretty funny, and he was only saddled with a couple chunks of computery exposition crap.
DAUGHTER.
This is another one straight out of UNDER SIEGE. PART 2: DARK TERRITORY, that is. In that one Katherine Heigl played Seagal's estranged niece, who knows a few moves courtesy of her uncle, tells the bad guys they've messed with the wrong guy and mends her relationship with him as he saves her life. Lucy Gennerro/McClane does the same exact thing here, but I didn't mind. It's kind of cute to see her take after her old man, her not speaking to him in the beginning is the last remnant of McClane's screwed up life, and if these bad guys didn't kidnap somebody in McClane's family they would be poor bad guys.
THE VILLAINOUS PLOT.
"Cyberterrorism" sounds really stupid on paper and on web, but in the movie I like the idea. Remember, Hans Grueber also had a corny movie-fied computer hacker on his team. These guys have a similar scheme but on a much larger scale. Instead of DIE HARD in a building it's DIE HARD in a country. Early on they manipulate the traffic lights to cause massive pileups all around Washington DC. McClane gets out, stands on top of his car and looks at the chaos as far as he can see in every direction, and it is a genuine "oh shit" moment. Later these jerkwads use the magic of the digital age to trap our guy in a tunnel between four lanes of traffic going both ways. The cybervillainy even creates some atmosphere in the scenes where they drive or fly through cities with all the lights turned off. Kind of eerie, kind of pretty.
And by the way, these aren't just computer guys, they also have a team of badass mercenaries. Which brings me to...
THE HENCHMEN.
I read Quint's review and I totally disagree with the guy, and especially on this front. I think the henchmen in this movie are topnotch. Maggie Q plays a sexy cold-blooded badass like she did in M:I:3 and DRAGON SQUAD (executive producer: Steven Seagal), and she has a great fight with McClane that is sort of a symbolic fight between modern action movies and the old style. (Don't worry, no wires as far as I noticed.) But my favorite henchman and one of the big surprises of the movie was the one apparently called Rand.
When the mayhem first starts, the movie is DIE HARD-in-a-dude's-apartment, but when it moves outside is when you notice Rand. There is a really gimmicky but excellent shot of this guy jumping around, swinging across fire escapes and what not, and the camera follows his every move. It's very modern in that it's such a precise camera move that was either done digitally or with a very fancy computerized camera rig. But it's old school in the sense that you can tell exactly what's going on, it's not disorienting. Then you get a clear look at Rand's face and I realized holy bananas, that's that dude from DISTRICT B13! Cyril Raffaeilli is his name. He's the guy that played the cop, not the founder of free running guy, but he does those kind of moves, and he is the stunt co-ordinator for many Luc Besson movies. When I realized it was him I had to think wait a minute, did he do that fire escape stunt FOR REAL? Because I bet he could.
Rand has a couple close calls with McClane but he keeps surviving. One of my buddies said he was "lucky," and Quint said he was "ridiculous." Both wrong. What he is is a die hard. A guy who vigorously maintains such hopeless positions as "if I get thrown from a car I think I can roll with the punches" and "if my helicopter blows up it would be a good idea to jump out." But he says those things in French because he is from France, where people run up walls and jump off buildings and know how to fall safely.
With these two characters you get a little martial arts, a little parkour, but neither enough to seem like they're showing off or trying to make it too modern. And McClane's tackle em, choke em, toss em down stairs, hit em with cars style of fighting wins every time.
TIMOTHY OLYPHANT.
Okay, I can't deny it, he is not an iconic villain like Hans Grueber, or even a fun over-the-top one like Eric Bogosian's Travis Dane in UNDER SIEGE 2. He has some good moments, especially when he gets the upper hand enough to dare McClane to "go ahead, say something funny." He's pretty good with the "I'm smarter than you" vibe, but it's hard to compete without a British accent. People are saying he is underwhelming, that's fair enough. I don't agree that he's bad, though.
KEVIN SMITH as "Warlock"
on the other hand, this mickey fickey is freakin terrible. I said before that I didn't blame him for taking the job, because who could turn down a chance to be in a DIE HARD movie? But now that I've actually seen it I feel like he had a moral obligation, as a fan of DIE HARD, to tell them they were flippin nuts to want to put him in the movie. This is the one out and out embarrassing scene in the movie. Partly because the "nerd who collects star wars dolls in his mom's basement" joke is so melon farming obvious and lame, but mainly because the guy does not know how to act in a serious movie. He delivers a "just how badass is this guy?" speech about the villain in the same "funny" tone that he does the "funny" speeches in his movies. It's completely out of place and momentarily derails the movie. They might as well have had Carrot Top, or Eddie Murphy in a fat suit, or Robin Williams on one of his spaz out trips. Or even a puppet. I know the original had Argyle for some wacky comic relief, but at least he fit into the world of the movie and was introduced at the beginning instead of at a crucial dramatic point in the story. To put it in terms "Warlock" could understand, he is the Jar Jar of this movie. The only genuine laugh in his scenes is when McClane threatens to beat him to death but (SPOILER) sadly he does not beat him to death, at least not in the PG-13 version. A HUGE missed opportunity there. He doesn't even get killed by the bad guys. Total bummer.
Director LEN WISEMAN.
I gotta give credit where credit is due. Wiseman gets the award for performing beyond expectations. I am not a fan of the UNDERWORLD movies and could not figure out why they would hire some dungeons and dragons nerd to do a DIE HARD. And I'm not saying the guy is John McTiernan quality, and I'm sure I'm gonna get plenty of guff for saying this, but I honestly think he did a good job. Walter B told us that Wiseman brought John McClane into the 21st century, and thankfully that didn't mean any of the following things it could've meant: shaky cameras, quick cuts, Avid farts, whooshy camera sounds, wire-fu, matrixy outfits, electronical music, rockin guitar soundtrack, bullet time, gratuitous CGI. Yeah, there's a "modern" feel to some of the color tinting and there are some fancy camera moves here and there, but - praise be Jesus - the Lord heard my call and made an action movie where for once I CAN TELL WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON! You guys can have your Michael Bay. Please, for God's sake, take him. I don't want him near my movies. Wiseman, at least in this movie, is Vern-approved. He designs his sequences in such a way that you can follow the geography of where the people are, where the vehicles are, what is headed in what direction, etc. These are images that involve you in the action instead of make you dizzy or explode in your face. And Wiseman uses these images to create tension and excitement in the audience. You know, like they used to do in action movies.
And that brings us to the main reason why this movie is worth watching: there really are some kickass action sequences. I am not saying this in a "there is a big explosion and it is AWESOME!" kind of way, I am saying that I love this character of John McClane and when he headbutts a guy or skids across pavement or falls down an elevator shaft it makes me grit my teeth. I usually hate it when people compare a movie to a "ride" or a "rollercoaster," but that's really how I felt watching this, there are many thrilling action sequences that if they don't send your balls through the back wall at least bounce them off the wall a couple times. It kind of feels like when you're on a rollercoaster hanging over a ledge staring straight down, and your heart beats fast and you can't help but smile. This movie gave me that feeling many times and, despite all my misgivings, I gotta be thankful for that. CASINO ROYALE is probaly a better movie overall, but to me this was more thrilling. Not that there's alot to compare it to, but it's the best action movie of this type in quite a while. Watching this movie you almost forget that they don't make movies like this anymore.
misc. notes
* The bad guys don't seem to bleed. There is one guy that gets shredded almost FARGO style, he bleeds a little, but you'd think there'd be a geyser. I almost wish they would've done green blood, that would've been funny. For the most part I was not bothered by the lack of blood though, because the number one rule is MCCLANE GOTTA BLEED, and he does indeed do all the bleeding in this one. There is one climactic moment though, and you will know it when you see it, where something pretty damn badass occurs, but the biologically impossible lack of blood actually made me think wait a minute, did a misinterpret that, is that not really what happened? So that wasn't good.
* Also I coulda done without the helicopter scene. McClane flies a helicopter which they use for quick transportation and to set up a joke that he took lessons to overcome his fear of flying. But there's no urgency to it, he doesn't really need to fly it, and it doesn't even lead to an action scene. So that was kind of dumb.
* The jet sequence has some phony looking digital effects, but most of the movie feels pretty organic. If you think this one is too digital you are pickier than I am. (And they don't look any more phony than Bruce propelling away from the explosion in part 2).
* I love the title LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD but it doesn't have much to do with the movie. It does take place on Independence Day, though. But it's not at all like the movie INDEPENDENCE DAY.
Before seeing the movie I figured this had to be the last DIE HARD. I'm not sure how many people are still interested in DIE HARD, and of those that are I know alot of them that lost interest once they heard it was PG-13. And then next week you got that exploding robot movie coming out, it's the same rating so that's gonna suck away alot of the audience. (and I do mean suck.)
But now that I've seen it I don't know. My experience was the opposite of Quint's - the audience was clearly into it, with lots of clapping and laughing and cheering. And maybe normal people don't care or notice about the PG-13 like we do. Maybe the world needs a shot of McClane in whatever strength they can get it. I'm sure some of my talkback pals will be disappointed in me for writing a mostly positive review and think I sold out or that I'm trying to be nice to Walter B so he'll send me the uncut version and autograph my cassette tape of The Return of Bruno. But I'm just being honest. I hate what they did with this movie. But I liked this movie.
Okay, Bruce said this is maybe better than the first one, that's not even close to true. But it's an enjoyable action movie in the midst of a long enjoyable action movie drought. It could catch on. So I ask you, Walter B, if you're out there, and if you ever choose to DIE HARD again. Think of us die hards. I won't even say you owe us one - you owe YOU one, because I know you want it too. You can do it. We believe in you. If you can jump off the side of a building tied to a firehose I think you can get those Dwayne T. Robinsons over there to understand that DIE HARD must go out with a children under 17 not admitted without a parent or guardian style bang. The backs of the theaters won't know what hit em. You'll make a movie like this times ten, and across the planet we'll all be yellin MOTHERFUCKER so loud it'll drown out all the gun shots in the world.
thanks Bruce,
Vern

Nice review Vern. Going to catch this sooner or later with my brother and old man. Not expecting to love it but if it's good enough to kill a hour or two I'm game.
<P>
Speaking of mister falcon's, I still don't think anything beats learning that in "Scarface" he got this infamous scar from eating pineapple. Hm.

Who knew the French kicked ass?<p>So then Vern, do you really think they cut enough stuff out to add back to an R rated DVD? I'm still confused and scared as to what this movie will deliver. So the main villain isn't that bad nor too memorable, yet the rest of the 'henchmen' pick up the slack? And no blood on the bad guys? Huh? How is that possible? <p>I do find it refreshing to hear that the action can actually be followed and you can understand what the fuck is going on. While I liked the first Underworld, I find it very surprising that Len W. actually made some good action scenes. So you mentioned it compared to the sequels, in terms of if you liked them, you'd like this one. How does it rate overall in terms of rating all 4 movies? <p>You certainly make it sound like the R rated version DVD would make your balls yo-yo around like motherfuckers.<p>I was in Jr. High Dickweed.

I'm disappointed with what I'm hearing about this. I love the other Die Hard movies and the idea that one has been made that doesn't measure up isn't a good one for me.
<br><br>
Being a fan of the others, I'll definately see the film and judge for myself. I have to say though - Underworld is one of the worst films I've seen in recent memory. I saw it for free at an early screening when it was released and still felt like I had been ripped off. I'm not saying the director is bad - I've just not liked any of his movies yet and was hoping this one will redeem him in my eyes. Well, it still might do...

I'm still just not seeing this. It actually openned in my country last week, so I could've seen it and actually written a review and gotten abused on this website by my fellow talkbalkers, but I passed cuz I just don't care about Die Hard sequels.<br><br>However, I would love to write a review for this website. There are days when I log on here just to heckle MiraJeff, so I'm sure he's been widdling an intricate little retort in his shed to throw at me and I can't wait to hear it.

thanks man for the great review. I'm glad that even with all your holdups about the whole pg13 Die Hard, you still were able to give us an honest op on this movie. I don't think I'll see this in theaters, but your review did get me a little more pumped.

I don't always agree with Vern, but I do agree with him about Die Hard, so this review has perked me right up. I was feeling a bit disheartened to think that Walter B had come into these here talkbacks and played a nasty game with our fragile little minds, but maybe there is some hope left in the world after all. Maybe there can be a rainbow. Maybe, just maybe, I will like this new Die Hard. That would be good.<p>"Pretty fairly unappreciated, Al."

I asked that question over at Quints review. Apparently though it's not different BUT then I read this on the bbfc website: "There may be frequent use of strong language (eg 'fuck'). But the strongest terms (eg 'cunt') will be acceptable only where justified by the context. Continued aggressive use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable."
So there could be hope yet that we get a slightly different cut to the US. It happens all the time, lets hope it has happened in this case mother(gunshot)er!!

I'll be seeing this flick ans enjoy the hell out of the inevitable R-rated DVD release. I'm not expecting it to top McTiernan's work, but I'll take what ever dose of John McClane I can get. Good to hear that they captured some of the series' theme of old school mayhem.

I don't like it. In fact, I'm starting to pretty much hate it. I am tired of everyone always thinking about the children all the time. Pardon me, but fuck the children. They have their swings and their paddling pools and their Wiis and their millions of adults cooing over them and telling them that they are our future. I would like a more adult world, if that's alright. I waited eighteen years to get it, so I really think I deserve it. I work and pay my taxes and fix holes in things like a proper adult does, so I would like a fair recompense.<p>Every day I am reminded of that film by another sometime talkbacker, Sylvester Stallone - Demolition Man. I do not want to live in that world where there is no sex or swearing or red meat or smoking or violent action films and the only man we have to look up to is Dennis fucking Leary. In just a few days, I will no longer be able to smoke in public places over here in little England. Added to that, this softer, gentler Die Hard. What's next? So, I am worried that this world of a sub-par Stallone film is going to happen whether I like it or not, and it probably won't even have a psychotic Wesley Snipes in it to perk things up. I say boo to that. Boo!

I agree with whoever mentioned Shane Black. And screw Die Soft 4. I'll leave it for the little kids, the ones all excited cause they think they've gotten into see the naughty movie. If only it would tank, then Wiseman could come out and bemoan that it was downloaded out of existence, that would be all the entertainment I could squeeze out of Die Soft 4, cause there will be SFA onscreen.

The list of nanny state/ corporate interventions is fucking endless. <p>I like smoking, I want to be able to eat red meat, call someone that spills coffee on me on the tube a cunt, drink GUINESS, not give a toss about a low fat alternative, play violent games, and watch proper violent adult thrillers. <p>This pandering to families and a belief that people only fuck up their bodies because they can't help themselves must stop. Drugs are banned and people still take them. WE LIKE BEING ABLE TO DO WHAT THE FUCK WE WANT. LEAVE US ALONE.<p> Nope, this low calorie alternative we seem to be blindly heading towards is a bad thing. Sort of Brave New World-y but with George Lucas substituted as God instead of Henry Ford.

I still feel lied to. I still feel like he tried to come here and play us like suckers. This movie has no soul -- worse -- no balls. I'm not going. I'm standing up, and I'm sending a message. No more pussy, bullshit action movies. Fucking with Die Hard is the last straw. I'm not going. See you in Hell.

I mean, if 20th Century Fox is going to digitally add blood and restore the profanity to the film when it comes out on DVD, why see this in the theater? Wait the three-five months, watch on DVD, and turn on your home theater system.

I appreciate the open mind you brought to the screening. I was going to see this anyway, but having read both your review and Quint's, now I feel a little more excited about the prospects that there might be something worthwhile, or at least somewhat engaging.</p>
<p>And I do indeed want to read the other AICN staff reviews on this one. Either for the vitriol they might heap on the flick, or for the even-handedness of this review, they'll be worth the price of admission.

It is much more than just saying fuck. I have read other reviews where they say the same thing: it appears that they cut short scenes in which the bad guys got bloody, ie the action was more in line with the previous installments. And McClane should not be so 'clean' and 'refined'. He's our down on his luck guy who takes his licks but comes back from more. AND he should be saying yippee ki yay motherfucker.

That was quite a rambling review Vern. So you're giving it a tepid "yes", and Devin at CHUD is giving it a mostly "no". I'll be skipping this one. I think Devin put it best: "The man who once tied a fire hose around his waist and made a terrifying jump off a roof and barely believes he survived leaps forty feet off the wing of a crashing Harrier jet, lands hard on an upended piece of an expressway and slides down it as the fireball of the exploding jet chases him. This John McClane gets up, dusts himself off and immediately sees the bad guys he lost fifteen minutes earlier. This isn’t isn’t Die Hard 4, it’s Bald Terminator 4. Live Free or Die Hard is a big, dumb cartoon, and its frantic quest for the NEXT! BIG! ACTION! SCENE! makes Bad Boys II seem restrained and realistic. I imagine that a generation raised on the Big Dumb Summer Blockbuster will love Live Free or Die Hard; anyone who actually enjoys the franchise will see this as an entry that shares only a title and characters in common with the previous films. It’s not just Die Hard In Name Only – Live Free or Die Hard is like the anti-Die Hard."

Such BS that people here make such a huge stink about the captivity billboards and now they have them as banners on this site for the movie where children can see. Also pics of Eli Roth's photoshopped cock and him being whipped by dominatrixs, how is that right?

Are you for real? I had this whole thing I was going to say, but when I thought over what I wrote above (Living in a childproof world), I wondered whether you might be having a little joke at my expense.<p>Are you joking? Or are you really one of these awful, awful people who thinks everything that could possibly offend a parent (because, let's face it, this kind of ludicrous hysteria is more often about THEIR sensibilites than it is those of the children) should be removed from the world?

I have to wholeheartidly have to agree with this reveiew I was lucky enough to see the film at the uk premier last week and this reall hits the nail on the head. I has lost some of it's grit with the loss of swearing and blood, but it's so fun to watch and the wise cracks and one liners that alos make it a Die hard film and still there. I lol at some of them

I would hope I'm not one of those awful people. I am def. against a pg13 world that we are living in. I want my horror bloody, and my curses gunshot free. All I'm saying is that, how can AICN talk shit about a billboard and then post things on their site that extole things much more offensive that anybody can log on and see. It doesn't make sense. You can't pick and choose to say that something isn't right and then post worse on your page. You are either for or against censorship. All I'm saying is that they are being very hypocritical

Only in this one, the fighting is actually done in pantomime - no bloodshed. Steve Carell is the lead - he's been in these grueling 8-hour-a-day mime classes just to buff up, but he's willing to do it just to pull this off. <br> <br>
First rule of Fight Club - no talking during Fight Club.<br> <br>
Hence the mimes. The kids will love it, the concept tested really well at Disney. You'll bring your children, won't you?

I was listening to this story on NPR about the children in Iraq who have to get reconstructive surgery because of the violence of war. Those children see real horror, that most of us couldn't handle. The kids in Africa who watch their mothers get raped and killed, they know true terror. When it comes to films, we don't need to pander to children (esp. to make a profit) but yes I think some things children shouldn't be exposed to. They should have some sort of ignorance to the evil of humanity before they suffocate on it. That doesn't mean that adults shouldn't be allowed to view what they want, the point I was trying to make is that if you run a website that shows violence, gore, nudity and swearing which is as easy as clicking on a link for anyone to get too, how can you be outraged at a billboard that only people in a select city can walk by and see?

You had me scared for a second.<p>As to the Captivity thing, I think it was just one writer who took a stand against that ad campaign (using the old "as a parent..." excuse) rather than the whole site. Even so, AICN can hardly be considered a bastion of integrity anymore.<p>I do agree the Eli Roth thing was a little tasteless, but then I also think the tastelessness is one of the things I like about AICN. Where else can you go for expressions like 'dead raped deer' and 'kicked me in the cunt'. If parents don't want their kids seeing these images or reading these words, it's their job to keep their young 'uns away from them. It is not OUR job to protect THEIR children for them.<p>P.S. excuse the capitals. I'm not shouting; just wishing I could italicise somehow. For emphasis and whatnot.

Trust me, I love the no holds bar attitude of this site (well what used to be) it reminds me of hanging with my friends. I was just making a point of what I had seen that didn't make sense to me. You are right, it isn't our job. If parents would take more responsibilty in raising their own children right, we probably wouldn't have this trouble at all.

Someone at Fox will get ideas.<p>What a glorious accident Fight Club was, by the way. Whether people like that film or not, you have to agree it's a near miracle that thing got made and released by a major studio. Good work, David Fincher.

My sequel to Run Lola Run, titled Drive Lola Drive, will be a hard R. I'm actually using the crew from that movie Valkyrie since production has been held up in Germany but they're still on contract.<br><br>This time, instead of running aggressively and bumping into people and stepping on them like in the first one, Lola pilots several vehicles in her mad dash across Berlin. She drives over people, at one point she'll hijack a speedboat and it will somehow propel itself down a city street chopping people in the propellor blades. This film will also feature a jousting bout between a vespa and a smartcar. I'm really excited about it.

so vern are you going to apologize to willis?i mean you were the one who were whining about the pg13.even when the man himself told you that the movie would be hardcore,u still kept disagreeing. but now you say that the movie is very good which means willis was right.so are you going to apologize to him?

Jesus, I hate those fucking things. That is a car that looks like it was designed exactly for the kind of person who is always adopting a a screwed up face, crossing their arms, and beginning outraged sentences with: "As a parent..." Also, for gay men.

the irony of Fox trying to milk this franchise, or brand, to get the most possible money is that they are essentially killing the hell out of it. Dead. They are so desperate to water down this series to make the most possible money, they've guaranteed it will bomb and kill the franchise for ever...in people's minds.
My biggest concern is not just with McClain surfing on an airplane wing, but with the cyberterrorism crap. Why do I get the feeling it's going to be terreble and unrealistic like that Will Smith movie, Enemy of the State or whatever it was called.
Oh, and stop hating all over DIe Hard 3. I'm a huge fan of Die Hard and part 3 was way better than 2. 2 was such a rip off of the first movie it was hard to care. Hell, they even mock that fact in the movie itself. At least 3 was fresh and kept the feel and attitude of McClain in tact. Sounds like Part 4 is nothing more than a shadow of what the series used to be. Too bad.

In this exciting sequel Cody Banks travels back in time to stick salad tongs deep inside the eye socket of the world's evil ruler. Then he goes on to have anal sex with Kim Cattrell and finishes with a donkey punch and spilling his goo in said old bitches face. This summer, Cody Banks will fuck your shit up

feel violently ill thinking about Drive, Lola Drive. <p>You are giving talentless marketing whores ideas. <p>except that Cody Banks one. That I would pay to see. I would only give it a mild retitling as today's teen scum are too stupid to understand time travel (and, hey fuck it, one evil bastard is the same as another) and have it ACB3: FUCK YOU OSAMA

...that a "24" movie (if one ever comes about) is going to be toned down for the children?<br><br>Other than that, glad you liked the movie, Vern. And for those who might give a damn, Bruce Willis will be on The O'Reilly Factor tonight.

Ashton Kutcher. He could play a talentless teen heartthrob who takes McClanes wife right after she gets in killer shape and has a bunch of plastic surgery. Then, to make matters worse, McClane still hangs around with them as some sort of horribly awkward third wheel. Even his daughters could have crushes on their new "daddy". That'd be a great character. But no one would ever buy it.

If you have to wait for the DVD to see a decent Die Hard, then what's the point of wasting $20 at the theater? Franchises are meant to be milked, but this is just too blatant for my taste. <p>Die Hard is dead. <p>P.S.: Here's another definition for Die Hard:<p>"Clinging to a seemingly hopeless or outdated cause." That would describe this PG-13 Die Hard movie. So fuck Tom Rothman, Fox and Rupert Murdoch. I left you out Vern, but seriously - you capitulated. It's sad.

I bet bourne 3 will end up being crap too. its the only one that will truly stray from the novel. Last time that happened was, ummm Lost World? Fuck Im pissed at how shitty the movies this summer have turned out. I cant believe they managed to fuck SpiderMan3, then Shrek, then Die Hard. 1408 is the only movie im stoked for. Simpsons,youd better fucking rock my world. Ironically Alien Vs Predator 2 looks like its getting everything right.

That this movie is good, but not good enough to be called Die Hard. That it's the best action movie of the last years, but it sucks as trying to be a Die Hard movie. That this movie doesn't deserve to be called DIE HARD. So I say: FUCK THIS MOVIE. Don't pay for it. Please. It's fucking WATER with a Coca Cola label on it. You wouldn't buy that one.

I thought I was the only one in the world still laughing about that TBS tv edit from say, oh, a decade ago. I used to yell it at kids in front of the teacher in 7th grade like I was bad ass. Then I realized my life wasn't edited by TBS... so then I became a real badass. Yeah, that was me spitting tobacco on the pitch at soccer practice.

What the fuck! I KNEW it! Willis is fucking magic! Man, I am SO going to see this movie today...I CAN'T WAIT! But, if the 'motherfucker' isn't there...I don't know...I'll be somewhat saddened. But then again, he does KILL A FUCKING HELO with a FUCKING CAR! WOOOOOOT! I love this site. I love the fucking Willis, and I can even wax political over on the SiCKO fucking thread while I can't wait for the fucking Willis in Live Free or Die Hard! Vern, thank you for being honest. And Quint too, actually. He told it like he saw it. Fuck yeah! Willis here I come!

Now he'll have to react. "Some guy calling himself Vern tried to badmouth me on some website's blog. Wow, I really care so much about! 'Hey, look at me, I'm important and my opinion about Kevin Smith matters because I wrote it in an Internet blog!'", Smith will write in his Internet blog.

Bruno's "Live Free Or Die Hard" = The JOYOUS and LONG OVERDUE rebirth of BIG TIME EIGHTIES ACTION?!?!<P>
YES!!! Make it SO!<P>
Ace Hunter, Cmdr MEGAFORCE, reassures us...<p>
"It's all on the wheel, it all comes around!"

As a generic action movie, it is good, bordering on great, fun (with the caveat of a dumb jet sequence).
As a member of its franchise, it is a bad, bordering on terrible, recreation of what the franchise is supposed to be about, that the dumb viewers won't even realize is a bastardization of the series (driving a tank through the middle of a city is the very opposite of espionage, kids).
Sounds entertaining, now that my expectations have been properly lowered.
P.S. Die Hard 3 > Die Hard 2, even if you are silly enough to think that the 10 square miles of airport terminals, access tunnels, airplanes, adjacent churches, etc. count as a recreation of the enclosed area of the first movie.

I saw this at a press screening last night, and I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with Vern.
But I'll go one step further and say this...I think "LFODH" is the best of the Die Hard sequels. It doesn't have that carbon copy script and utterly ridiculous derivativeness from Part 2 or the lame cops/school subplot from WAV (remember when McClane told Zeus "of course they put the bomb in the school..to make sure they had your full attention." But Zeus wasn't supposed to be part of the plan!)
I had also missed the brutal hand-to-hand combat from Part One, and was clad to see McClane in some great streetfights here. He's still funny and tough, just not dropping the F-Bombs like he used to...and I just imagined that was part of him maturing and calming down a bit.
Loved the film better than most sequels this summer. And I'm wondering if anyone noticed the "Officer Johnson" gag.

I'm going to go see this with the lowest expectation possible and because I'm a fan of the Die Hard movie. Even thought the review is positive, it still doesn't sound like a Die Hard movie. It's pretty sad that some of the ideas in this movie were already used in movies that stole from the original Die Hard. I didn't like the idea of John McClane having a sidekick in Die Hard with a Vengeance and I hate it even more now. John McClane is a lone wolf with enough personality that we don't need to have some fake comedy sidekick in the movie. Hopefully my low expectations will turn out to be a good thing and I'll enjoy the movie as a decent action movie but not a Die Hard movie.

Arms sale demolition as a kick-off, remote control parking garage mayhem, Michelle Yeoh looking hot and kicking ass, wild motorcycle vs helicopter action, space age submarine battle for a climax. Lots of fun. Take away the tank rampage from GoldenEye and you have nothing cool. (Points for Sean Bean as the bad guy, but the Puerto Rico radar dish fight was boring.)

I respect he is a true DH fan, and although my movie-sense tingled since day one, and I am rarely wrong about movies that will annoy me, I will out of respect to Vern check it out at some point with an open mind, although Fox isn't getting any money from me, because I am not supporting this rating in the theatre. So it'll have to wait for Netflix or whatever...

...between a "Captivity" ad on a website and one on a billboard is that you *choose* to go to the website and have some expectation of what you might find there. The billboard is just hangin' out there for anyone to stumble upon. Criticizing the studio's choice to put the ad on a billboard is not censorship - discouragement is not the same thing as prohibition.<p><p>(Besides, it was all a publicity stunt in the first place. They took the ad down as soon as it got them the attention they wanted.)

James Bond was never a hardcore franchise about brutal violence and sassy cusstalking. So Goldeneye wasn't a "watered down version" of pervious films the way this new Die Hard is. The Brosnan Bonds all followed the same format and had the same tone as Conney and Moore's films. If you don't like Pierce's acting or didn't feel the films came together well, that's one thing. But acting like Goldfinger was somehow a hardcore gorefest cuss-o-thon is silly.

Every American reality show has some English chap abusing Yanks and they seem to love it. And now Vern says that the villian in this film would be more condescending if he were "British" (that's Yank code for English). I actually can't think of one good action movie where the hero has been a Yank and the villian a Pom. What comes to mind? Firewall? Gone In 60 Seconds remake? The Patriot? Yanks versus Poms never seems to turn into an interesting dynamic. Stick to having Yank heroes fight German and Eastern European baddies.

I'll see this fu(gunshot)in movie. PG-13 or not. John motherfu(gunshot)in McClane in action. I agree that Bruce W needs to go on a rampage and force Fox to do an R-rated DH5.
<P>By the way ... Fox can go fu(gunshot) themselves for watering LFODH down, and there better motherfu(gunshot)in be a fu(gunshot)in "Unrated", "Director's Cut" or whatever they want to fu(gunshot)in call it that delivers the real goods. Fu(gunshot)in Fox losers ... you people suck ass. It really is a disservice to the fans of the franchise, but you people don't really care do you. As long as the $$$ flow in, FUCK THE PEOPLE, right Fox? Stupid motherfu(gunshot)ers have no fu(gunshot)in business sense. Don't you idiots realize how much more money you would make with a hardcore real Die Hard action flick? The audience that actually wants to see this (read not the fu(gunshot)in teeny-boppers) would love a movie IN THE FU(gunshot)ING tradition of the OTHER FILMS IN THE SERIES. I hate you, Fox losers. You suck. Ass.

...You got me, Vern. I was planning on avoiding this thing, but now I'll definitely check it out on unrated DVD (hear that, Fox?). Although, since I'm living in Europe at the moment, perhaps there is a chance that the theater version here is replete with motherfuckers? Casino Royale, after all, was cut only in the United States for its rating.
<p>
But if you're wrong about Live Free or Die Hard/Die Hard 4.0, I will personally and metaphysically reach through the internets and Force-choke you inna Captain Needa stylee.
<p>
I keed.
<p>
Cyril Raffaeilli, however, I already know is the shit, as is District 13. CR's fight scene in the casino being a particularly stand out moment of mind-boggling ass-kickery.

"you piece of trash." The Y should be capitalized. Is it really untrue that most Americans are idiots? I mean, Paris Hilton is bigger news then the war? People voted for W. twice? People think Larry the Cable Guy is funny? Sounds like idiots to me.

Mel Gibson should have directed the new Die Hard. God Damn does he know how to make a visually stunning action film with amazing character developement!!!! - Die Hard Vs. Lethal Weapon!!!!!!! rated NC-17 and directed by Mel- How fucking cool would that be!!!!!

Some Americans are fu(gunshot)ing idiots. Sure W is a sellout piece of shit. Sure Paris Hilton is blown up by the media (more an indictment of the state of the media IMO). There are also plenty of Americans who are far more intelligent and hate that shit. Give me a break though ... don't tell me there is not the same level of idiocy around the world. David motherfu(gunshot)ing Hasselhoff a mega-star in Germany. Euro-trash falling all over themselves for Michael Jackson. Sound like idiots to me.
<P>Generalizations are for the weak minded.

Here's the fact, we rule because we say we rule, and when we freak out when someone says we don't rule, then it proves we don't really rule. But it's nice to believe that we're the only people on the planet for a while, then get all up in arms over the world's not appreciating our awesomeness.<p> Rickman had a German accent at the beginning of Die Hard, then fell back on his English accent when McClane figures out his bullshit plan, by the by.<p>Anyway, I love my country, and I would protect it from all real threats. But namecalling? Fuck man, the BEST part of our country is the fact that anyone can say ANYTHING in their opinions! Fuck yeah, come here and call Americans whatever you want, but simply respect that we are the kings of adaptation and amalgamation. (not always the finest trait, mind, but one of our more unique) And the fact that we aspire to the best in our natures, even if we are easily influenced.

Most of the people in America are such sheep, willing to follow what ever the govt. tells them to be afraid off. No one is in the streets trying to make this a better country, but I bet if they cancelled Monday Night Football, there would be riots across the nation. This country is gonna fall. And I don't see it being too far in the future that it happens. American's think they have the right to rule the world or that we are the best. That's just a bunch of bullshit. Everyone talks about "freedom" all the time. What freedom is that? The freedom to change what you feel is wrong? The freedom to be fired for talking about God in school? The freedom of taxes? The freedom of health care? Hell, our votes don't even count. Do we get any say in what gets passed into law? Do we even know about it until after the fact? America is smug and acts like it can never go down. But it will. Just like Rome.

oh that's right, we really don't have any! Oh and the deficit, that doesn't matter. Or the endless war we are in? Not gonna be a problem. Don't sweat it. Just go back to sleep. I mean it's not like we won't find any consequence to invading a country, making it worse, pissing off the world with our "boot in their ass" attitude. That sounds just like a nation that is gonna have a long long run to me.

For saying that you liked this movie, you sure put a lot of negatives in there that sounded to me to be pretty fucking bad. Yeah that stupid jet looks dumb, yeah the bad guys don't bleed, yeah the guy suddenly doesn't swear, drink or smoke, yeah he dresses like a hipster, yeah his daughter is like under siege, yeah the action looks digital and fake, yeah it's stupid that he can suddenly fly a helicopter for no good reason, etc. etc. It sounds to me that you talked yourself into liking this despite crippling flaws. I'm sorry dude, but this is hardly objective and reading between the lines, this movie SUCKS BALLS!

if instead of that, we all work together to actually make the world a good place to live in. We have no idea what real pain is. There are kids being killed and raped everday all over the world, but yet it's just a blip inbetween commercials for alegra. We as the human race could stand to learn a little compassion for each other and use our will not for the betterment of ourselves but for others. Who gives a shit if you come from America. It doesn't make you any better than anyone else because of where you are born. If this country wasn't so fucking selfish maybe we wouldn't have to fight. There are evil people all over the world, but we don't need to feed into hate with our apathy.

You're talking Bollocks. Absolute drivel. Have you even read the books? The 1st film stayed broadly along the same lines as the first book. May, what, 60%?. But the second film had almost nothing to do with the second book. Almost nothing. It will be the same with this film. Anyway, I think the Bourne films have been pretty solid all the way through so far. The only parts I could do without are the shaky cam from Supremacy, and also it would have been nice for Marie to survive.

Great review, Vern! That said, it's "Gruber", not Grueber. I don't mean to bitch, but it always irritates me when someone writes an article about how much they love a film or a series and then they fail to make sure they are spelling things right. It's just not that professional, especially when places like IMDB and Wikipedia exist where you can check the proper spelling of things. Or hell, throw in the DVD and take a gander at the credits. Anyway, great review as always aside from that nitpick. Keep up the good work!

Let's just all kill each other. I mean who cares about 9/11 or the tsunami, or iraq? Right? I mean fuck peace! We need violence and greed and hate to fuel our primitive desire. So lets cross our fingers and hope that more innocent kids get killed for no purpose. And we can get attacked again and start a war with another country. Let's not be satisfied till blood is flowing through our streets like a river. Is it so wrong that I would hope that we could do a little more then suck ourselves off every day of our lives?

I don't think Dr. Evil used his Weather Beam to start that...I hope you're not blaming the US for that (unless you think we caused it by global warming, in which case...oh geez)...and I hope you're not blaming us in the recovery effort, because last I checked, we contributed more to the relief than any country, and almost more than all the other countries combined.

what I was saying was that the previous TB'er who was saying that I'm a hippy, I am making a point that are you happy enough with the destruction of the world. Or do you crave more? People sure seemed to forget about that pretty quick. I didn't see movies being made about that, did you?

That I'm a fucking asshole. Hope you have wonderful lives not caring about anything other than yourselves. Enjoy wasting your lives. I mean, I can tell that none of you understands a word I've tried to say to you.

Look man, I know it's frustrating seeing the state of the world today...there's lots of crap going on that makes me mad too. But lets not blame America for all the wrongs of the world...the USA is still the best country in the world. Notice I didn't say PERFECT. But we're still the best...who's done more to keep the world out of darkness than us? Who gives more of themselves, both in money and people, to other countries than us? I think the anger you're seeing from some of the TBers is from you not putting it all into perspective.

Vern, to be honest, I haven't always been the biggest fan of your reviews, but this one was definitely your best. I thought it was fantastic. Well written, presented clear, concise points. You state your argument very well and I commend you on a job well done. This one clearly meant a lot to you, and I'm glad to hear the movie isn't as bad as Quint made it out to be. I nearly saw a midnight screening last night after I got out of 1408 but it had already started and I didn't want to miss a minute of the movie. That said, I was really excited to see 1408, it's been getting pretty solid reviews from all over and... I thought it was absolute crap. It started out strong but the second half of that movie was nearly unbearable. Just ridiculous, predictable garbage that was almost as bad as The Number 23. Such a shame. I really thought that was going to be the sleeper hit of summer, for me at least. Incredibly disappointing. Watched the King of Kong this morning and THAT was a good movie. I'll review it soon enough. But I can't stress this enough. Do NOT enter 1408. It is a complete waste of time.

I was wondering if I should avoid this movie to try to make a point to the studios that this watered down garbage will not stand. On the other hand, if this is the best we've got, why not enjoy it. This review has convinced me to give it a shot.

a more civilized world, where people would care more about their fellow man, than themselves. Life may be more happy and enjoyable if more people lived that way. Selfishness may very well destroy this country. I hope the people of this nation(and the world) would have a change of heart. I'm I putting (verb) my thoughts into and a more succinct way for you now?

I get what you are saying man. I do. I guess my anger has come from years of watching the people of this country stand by, when their govt is screwing not only them, but other countries over. I would just like to live in a world where we took more time out of our lives to think of others, instead of aching to be better then them.

I think you're overstating your case. Saying it was poor judgement to place the ads on billboards and suggesting the studio remove them is not the same as "wanting to ban" them. Therefore, I think you're pushing a losing argument by claiming 'hypocracy'. It's not hypocritical to believe that the ad is more appropriate in one venue than another.

so your saying that if an abortion clinic objects to having pictures of aborted children on signs by protesters outside of their office but yet on the inside support the act of it, it's not hypocritical? Sorry for the analogy, it was the only thing I could come up with right now.

There is some mental disconnect for the shit heads writing for this site. This is AICN, not Time Magazine. We want to find fun and cool movies. DH4 is a fun and cool movie. It is a blast. Now, stop reading reviews, people, and go see this one. You will enjoy it.

1. Sorry about misspelling Gruber. However in my defense I must cite the precedent of Walter B. talkbacks, in which the actor who plays John McClane repeatedly spelled it MaClane.<p>
2. The accent thing. I was kind of joking about villains in American movies often having English (or some kind of European anyway) accents. To us a guy with an English accent always sounds smarter than a guy without one. For example, Tony Blair's actions make it clear he is a complete dipshit, but everybody here still believes he's smart. We have an inferiority complex so when Alan Rickman talks to us condescendingly it is more threatening than when Olyphant does. We worry that he really is smarter than us and that he will berate us for saying "British accent" instead of "English accent."<p>
3. I did not say this is the worst sequel. At this point I can't say where it ranks, especially when you figure in the possible Unrated You Can Hear Him Say Motherfucker Edition factor. But I feel good today because it is way better than I was expecting. If it's the worst of the sequels it's not way worse. My buddy put it best telling me he was happy that he can live his life without having to say "Yeah, the DIE HARD movies are great! Except for the fourth one, don't watch the fourth one."<p>
And I should make it clear, I hold the sequels to a little different standard than the original. The moment "the same shit happens to the same guy twice" you start having to accept more ridiculousness, and as much as I like WITH A VENGEANCE there is alot you have to swallow in that one (including but not limited to leaping from ridiculous heights, taking out helicopters, continuing to pursue a bad guy after you no longer have to). That's what I meant when I said this was in the same tradition. If you hated WITH A VENGEANCE definitely don't bother with this one.<p>
And by the way, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to support it with money or for waiting for the DVD. I might've done the same thing if I didn't get a free pass and feel obligated to review it. But if you choose to see it I hope you won't be disappointed.

there is fucking pathetic....I worried about that shit when i was fucking 10 years old....is the film entertaining?? that is all i care about now........how fucking old are some of you? sorry to be a dick but jesus christ its like the only thing you like about the original die hard is the fact he says fuck. so he doesn;t say the f word..is that such a huge deal to you guys? so so so lame......

...on film, of course. Sometimes the stronger violence is needed to make a film more visceral...especially when you're going to see a DH flick. I'll agree about the swearing - I mean, I didn't miss Arnold Schwarzenegger dropping the F-bomb in Conan, but I sure as heck would have missed the beheadings and such.

Can't you get away with one FUCK and still get a PG-13? I thought that was the understanding. You are telling me that Bruno saying it once at the end is going to make or break if a 13 year old can see this?

i really thought that this bullshit with production companies making watered down HORSESHIT pg13 movies to protect their opening weekend sales was over. i thought the concept was waning. obviously not though. you know who caused all of this? bill clinton. i liked clinton, but this is his fault. he was the one who decided to crack down on no children under 17 being allowed into r-rated films. as soon as he spear-headed this, production companies became afraid of releasing r-rated features because it might hurt the bottom line. they knew that the pre-teen/young teen crowd was a huge demographic on friday nights. so when the rules got picky (i.e. parent/gaurdian must purchase child's ticket AND watch the movie with them), everything went to hell. yet another example of the government butting in to raise our children because there are so many fucking TERRIBLE parents out there who just don't know how to. jesus christ, if we're going to turn a blind eye to everything else in this fucked up world, why can't we with some 16 year olds going to see grindhouse (that's more or less a joke...more or less). don't get me wrong. obviously, some feature films do great with a pg13 branding. and i'm a huge fan of well-made children/family films. but fuck me sideways, there are some films that don't work being pg13. this kills me, especially in the horror genre...you know what, i'm too angry to even talk about this. FUCK it.

Wow, I never knew that... I once saw a snippet of an interview with the women from Human League ( yes, it was a *long* time ago ) anyway, during that interview she referred to herself as British. I always thought it was acceptable, however, you have schooled me, sir. Thanks for the insight.<p>
Oh... should I not have addressed you as 'sir?'

in the trailer, when he does the yippie-kie-yay mother (gunshot) thing or whatever the fuck, was that how it went down in the movie or did he say fuck? it's probably in the tb above but i'm lazy. in 1408 john cusack said fuck twice and it was pg13. seriously, can someone post how it went down in the movie? thanks.

I was confused because in Vanity Fair they said you could say fuck twice in a PG-13, but I don't think he says it other than the notorious muffled instance. Another weird thing, the "yippee ki yay" clip in the trailer and TV commercials is not where it happens in the movie.

Of course it comes down to the bottom line for studio pictures, they're in the business to make money. The 'R' rating does not equal box office. Only 9 of the top 100 grossing films are rated R (Passion of the Christ, Matrix Reloaded, Beverly Hills Cop, Exorcist, Saving Private Ryan, 300, Wedding Crashers, Terminator 2 and Gladiator) Of those, maybe three you might classify as action. Don't think anyone complained that the LOTR trilogy was PG13. I think too many of us have 'old day' syndrome and think it was better back in the past. But ultimately the rating has nothing to do with it. It's about the talent, or lack thereof, of the people making the film. People cried out for Snakes on a Plane to be an R, it was, and it still sucked. I don't understand why anyone would NOT see a movie just because of the rating. Nonsensical. Not seeing a movie because Brett Ratner is directing, sensical.
Yes, it would have seemed more like McClane to be cursing and I would have enjoyed it, but the "cursing" itself was not why I went to see Die Hard movies. It was to be entertained. This movie entertained me.
And to Klyegass, the scene in the trailer with McClane getting ready to say his trademark is NOT in the movie. The trademark is, but it's done different than in the trailer.

I agree, I want to see him cussing and smoking. I think that was pretty clear. But I'm giving an honest assessment of the movie. It would've been easier for me to just say it sucked, and then you would be happy. I could've written that review without seeing the movie. But the truth is, despite these major injustices, I was able to enjoy the movie. I think the filmatists did a good job in a bad situation. (Except for that Kevin Smith shit.) Sorry bud. But I'm happy.<p>
As for DIE HARD not having CG, that's because it was made in 1988. So they used miniature models. If they used a stop motion jet in this one would you go see it? I wasn't as into that scene (one of my buddies loved it, but he likes Michael Bay) but overall the movie is less reliant on CG than you usually see these days.

there's no doubt about it...you are right. production companies will always have to observe the bottom line. my rant is just anger. what i'm really referring to are projects that you KNOW beyond doubt that they were supposed to be r but were rated pg13. it cheapens it. i.e. john mcclane is a man who curses...alot. but not now. and thanks for answering my question btw. it's hard to get a question answered on these tbs sometimes.

as the action in say MI:III or Casino Royale. Your review seems to suggest it does but from Underworld i would have expected action that lacked impact or intensity in anyway.<p>Really loved that you disscussed the geography of the action scenes, most people don't realize that this is 75% of what makes an action scene have intensity.<p>It is hard to feel the action when you don't know what is really at stake or how close a character is to being defeated or winning at any given moment.<p>One aspect i was really hoping for was a hatred for the bad guy. I wanted the kidnapping of McClanes daughter to create an atmosphere of anger in the viewer similar to the feeling you get watching Leathal Wepon 2. You just want the hero to kill every single one of the bastards and then tourture the motherfucker. You should be shouting at you screen going "Come On! KIll them cunts!"<p>Great review man.

Which is what they call it over here...and I just had to make a comment. It rocks!!! I agree with Vern...it takes you a couple of minutes to get into the Die Hard mode...it took me a while to get used to the new look...but once you accept that McClane has aged, that Lucy is infact a young adult now, that todays technology and familiarity with terrorism makes it difficult to use as simple a plot as in the other movies, it works. It really works.
Its a must see. I wouldnt mind spending another 10 bucks to see it again. Although next time, I will go a little later to avoid the often loud and annoying young teens...(active cellphones should selfdestruct in a movie theater...)

mobile in half in the cinema. He was some little tosser talking on his phone and shouting shit at the screen when i went to see 300><p>I stood up went and snatched his phone from his ear, it was flip open and i just bent it back until it snapped. I dropped it on the floor and stared at him till he walked out.<p>Most satisfying moment ever. I pitty you guys in the U.S i saw the first Spiderman there and you people can't shut up for more than 10 seconds.

And not one of them has CGI. Save your 10 bucks this weekend and hunt down Kelly's Heroes, The Dirty Dozen, Thunderbolt & Lightfoot, DIE HARD, Lethal Weapon 1, Five For Hell, The Wild Bunch, The Dion Brothers, Magnum Force, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Sharkey's Machine, The French Connection, pre-1980's James Bond, The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3, Deliverance, Death Hunt...I could go on. Action movies suck today (except Saving Private Ryan). No heart, no soul. Just loud booms and pretty 'splosions to make the dummies go "Ooooo" and "Ahhhhh"

to all the haters of die hard 2 you can have 2 words
"fuck" and "you"
i actually enjoyed dh2. i thought it was cool to see john amos get the icicle in the eye and the interactions mclane had with lorenzo were great.
i liked it better than dh3. i understand sams the man but idk just something about that movie didnt click for me. the whole bomb in the school thing, yeah , again idk there was just soemthing about that film that i didnt like.

Ok, ok. I'll go see it despite the rating... but I won't pay for a PG-13 McClane. Sorry, Brucey... but Fox hosed you. I guess I'll just buy another ticket to "Knocked Up" in support of it's hard 'R' (even though it underwhelmed me) and walk into "LFODH." Oh, and... Nice review.

Being close to Bruce's age, I can relate to the smoking/drinking/cursing issue. I do a lot less of it now than when I was thirty. Going to work with a hangover really isn't any fun. Hacking for 20 minutes in the morning gets old. Throwing around "fucks" in front of woman and kids seems childish. I do wish he had kept some hair, like a military buzz, but maybe that's the one getting older vanity thing he has.<p>
The reviews are fairly good so far. Although the USA Today one sent a shudder up my spine, in that it suggested Fox may be looking to revive the series with Justin Long replacing Bruce. (A nerdy hero put into an impossible situation.)

For the record, you can say "Fuck" once in a PG-13, but you CAN'T say "motherfucker" as it implies (at least to the motherfucking MPAA) a sexual act with someone's mother. Hence "Yippee Ki Yay, MotherBLAM!"

Yeah, those movies are great ... but you are a fuckin moron if you think there are no good modern action movies other than Saving Private Ryan. Bourne, Casino Royale, DHWAV, Batman Begins, Matrix, and so on ...

As some of you may now know, AICN leaked earlier this week that Jesus Christ has a brief cameo in the latest 'Die Hard' installment. I had the opportunity to sit down and discuss this experience with the Big Guy himself. It took awhile to buckle down and transcribe it for y'all, but I think you'll agree it was worth the wait:
Me: So first of all, I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to sit and talk with us. I know you're not much for interviews.
JC: It's my pleasure. I was soured by Larry King's refusal to wash my feet and swore them off for awhile. (laughs)
Me: I suspect that guy has a lot of skeletons.
JC: Turn off that recorder and I'll give you all the dirt.
(My love for celebrity gossip won out, and I obliged. Twenty minutes passed, and then we were on the record yet again.)
Me: Wow..
JC: Yeah, and I'm not the easiest guy to shock.
Me: So, getting back on track here, how did this whole 'Die Hard' thing come about?
JC: Well, Bruce contacted my father asking whether or not he thought it was a good idea to even make the dern thing. Dad's always been generous about offering guidance, but passed the script along to me to get my take. I don't know what to tell ya. I fell in love with it. Once I got ahold of Bruno to tell him so, he offered me a part.
Me: Tell us a little bit about your character.
JC: Where to start..
Me: It's been reported that both song parodist 'Weird Al' Yankovic and the cartoon skunk Pepe LePew influenced your character, Dink DeForest. Why those two?
JC: Al has always been a great hero to me and I felt that international terrorists of the 21st century were sort of parody artists. Who better than Mr. White N' Nerdy to be your inspiration? Pepe LePew - I always liked him.
Me: Now that you've gotten a taste for the business, is there any chance we may be seeing you on the silver screen again soon?
JC: Funny you should ask, actually. Jimmy Caviezel and I just penned a buddy comedy we'll soon be shopping around at festivals.
Me: Fascinating.
(At this point his cell phone rings, he has a brief exchange and hangs up.)
Me: Always on call, huh?
JC: Dude, you have no idea.
Me: Well, I think I speak for everyone when I say thanks for taking the time to field some questions. Your internet fans are sure to appreciate it.
JC: Check out my MySpace page! Take it sleazy.
So, there you have it. Affable, engaging. Our lord and savior. ('Live Free or Die Hard'. Watch for it in theatres worldwide today!)

There was a special on the other night showing how they did the spinning car and helicopter scenes. Pretty cool. Two takes for the car and one for the helicopter. The stuntman actually did jump out of the helicopter and they wrapped a wire around the car and yanked it like a top. I't good to see that real stunt work still can compete.

Sorry but even that isn't good enough. I would rather have no Die Hard than Die Hard Lite directed by one of the Stephen Sommers of the moment. This review, while well written, just confirms what I suspected it would be. No thank you.

I'm getting tired of seeing sequels where a character who was intended to have an edge all of a sudden loses that edge because the star has become a humanitarian or the studio thinks it'll make more money if the character no longer smokes and curses. This is the same crap that happened with the Lethal Weapon series. Each movie became softer then the last one. The next thing you'll see is John McClane's entire family in the next movie and it'll have one of those old Starsky and Hutch endings where he save the day, cracks a joke and looks right into the camera smiling as the end credits role. They'll call it Passed Away Hard because Die is too strong of a word.

Was a fantastic sequel. It did what all the best sequels do - reinvents the wheel while satisfying the same core fanbase. OKAY I could have done without the surfing in the sewers part, but I could have done without the WHOLE of Die Hard 2. And this looks like a sequel to Die Hard 2, not the two pictures that dared to be different. The only parts of Die Hard 2 I like are the parts that they ripped straight out of the first one. This new film, Die Soft/Sucks Hard, looks like it's just gonna make me want to watch the old ones. I'll probably put off seeing it until an unrated dvd comes out, which is better or I'll never watch anything with Bruce Willis in it again (ha, like I give a shit about any of his non-Die Hard, non-12 monkeys movies anyway!)

T3 was an ace little action film, grewat car chase and was really quite enjoyable. But it didn't feel like the epic end to a brilliant franchise it felt like they make a terminator movie every year. It was just too small and plain.<p>T3 should have gotten a brilliant director to make a war film set in the future.<p>What was the point of re-hashing T2?<p>It could have been a perfect trilogy...T1 sci-fi horror clasic...T2 sci-fi action classic...T3 sci-fi war movie classic.<p>Sometimes it is worse when you don't hate a movie, you feel conficted that you enjoy T3/DH4 butdon't feel they are in any way worthy of finishing a great series of films.

In this particular summer of one crap film after the next. No, no I don't. Nor should I as I don't particularly like my intelligence being insulted by stupid men with too much money and no taste whatsoever. As long as they continue this trend of more or less every genre film that comes out being complete and utter garbage (I'm look at you comic book films) I'll keep criticizing them. And if we ever want it to change more people should follow suit.

for taking risks. Spiderman was a big risk, hiring a director who was a fan of the comics and an actor like Toby Maguire who at the time scored minus 10 on the likelyhood to draw in teenage girls scale was a big risk.<p>They took a risk with xmen by letting singer direct, they took a big risk with batman begins by letting Nolan direct and by letting him make a film which would probably bore anyone under the age of 18.<p>Ang lees Hulk was a massive risk. 'Oh lets let the guy who did sense and sensibility direct and we'll get the guy out of Chopper (which hardly anyone had seen) to star.' That is taking a risk, people where devided by the film (i love it) but you have to admire the respect they had for the genre giving a big budget movie to an art house director and letting him have free run with it. <p>Hollywood can be a good place but they never learn from their success.<p>If taking a risk on Spidey, x-men and BB worked why do they act like it is impossible to take risks with projects like FF or DH4.

it's worse than that. T3 at least had the ingredients for a Terminator movie, even if it wasn't very good and completely disregarded the whole point of the future not being written. Die Hard 4 has none of the stuff that makes a Die Hard movie while at the same time lacks both in drama and credible action. It's more what AVP was to the Alien franchise.

Aliens and Predators in it so bland. Paul W.S Shiterson must have really tried hard to achieve such a feat.<p>It was like they did a survey of the most unintersting setting for a alien film and came up with 'non descript dark corridors inside a pyramid.<p>Anyone read the graphic novel? Similar plot but it is all set in a wester type mining colony on a desert plannet, theres even hover bike type things they get around on. It would have made a brilliant movie.

I did not expect to after all the negative buzz I've read in the last two days. It was over the top and ridiculous and stupid, but really entertaining. More a sequel to the third one than the other two, but I thought it might have been a little better. At least this didn't have John having to solve actual riddles.

I just got home from watching it with my brother and wife. It kicked the theaters ass. They cheered at the end.<p>
<p>
Bruce Willis wasn't lieing when he said it was the best since the first. For what it is... I'd say it's as well done as the first one. It's not innovative like the first, but, hey, that's one reason the first kicked so much ass. This one definititly breathed life back into the series and I hope it makes enough we get another 2<p>
<p>
"why don't we go outside and see who hurts who?"<p>
<p>
It may be PG13... but I don't think I would have even noticed til it was over if I hadn't know before. I think it would have been one of those moments when it clicks for you and you think... whoa... I don't think he said 'fuck' in this movie.<p>
<p>
I am happy to say, that in a summer of sequels, finally we have one that delivers the goods.<p>
<p>
Thank you Maggie Q for the best fight scene in an American action movie since... I can't remember.<p>
<p>
And Justin Long did great. Hitman did perfect for his slick programmer bad guy role. He's no Hans, but what bad guy in an action movie has been that cool since?<p>
<p>
I am definitely going to watch it again.
<p>

The Bourne series is decent, but not a classic. Too frenetic and shaky with very little heart. Matrix I may agree with but it doesn't count as it's Sci-Fi. Casino Royale was a Royal letdown. Everyone hyped the shit out of that as the best Bond film ever. It was actually dull at times. Craig was awesome but the action scenes were just "eh". A nice try and much better than the last few, but still fell way short. Jurassic Park was a great action film but I'm talking about "real world" action. Not science fiction. Name 5 kick ass "real world" action films in the 90's. Ones that will be loved for 25 years to come.

on the action i am quite excited again.<p>He says that you have a constant lock on where everyone is and what is at stake.<p>He also says no jumpy editing.<p>Too many action films fall flat on the basis that you don't really know what is going on in an action scene. This takes away any tension.

Not perfect, but it had some really cool shit in it. There is some truly unbelievable shit, but, come on, it's Die Hard. Bruce is cool in it, could have been some more blood, and there are some scenes where the lip-synching of lines is remarkably terrible - obviously covering up different dialogue. Bruce beats the crap out of Maggie Q and it is awesome. There are a few edge of your seat moments. All in all a fun flick. More satisfying than a lot of stuff this summer so far. Maybe because my expectations were lower than some of the other sunner flicks.

where the action has tension and draws you in than a R rated movie with bloody action and swearing but lacking any tension.<p>It's easy having lots of blood and explosions, it is much harder making an effective action scene.

It's better than DH2. Almost as good as 3, and I like 3 a lot. 4 had some damn good or nearly great stuff in it, and while it had regrettable business in it as well, so do most action films. I didn't miss the swearing; the film was so loud that it felt like I was hearing "fuck" every ten minutes anyway.</p>
<p>Worst part of the film was the faux drama created by lines like, "Tell me when it's 20 percent downloaded" or "Check the USB cable...is it plugged in? Oh, it's firewire? Phew."</p>
<p>There was one scene here it sort of reminded me of Ghostbusters, the street scenes with passing fire engines etc, and no sooner did I think that when guys in shiny Hazmat suits climbed out of a vehicle, looking like the Ghostbusters.</p>
<p>DH4 was a good time at the movies.

And i think we are in a position to see some of the best action films of all time in this decade.<p>If the type of action in Casino Royale can be made into a balls out action movie it would be amazingly intense.<p>That is the type of movie DH4 should be. The type which redefines the genre.

isn't where he says it in the final movie either. Actually, the more that i think about it, Die Hard 1 and 2 are a pair of confined movies about McClane saving his wife, and 3 and 4 are a pair of movies about McClane more or less going wherever he feels like to do whatever he needs to in order to get to the next action scene.

I mean, we're talking about a movie where Emothy Olyphant sends an order to a US government plane and tells the pilot to kill a random vehicle because it's got a terrorist in it, and so the pilot starts sending missiles that destroys an entire highway, dussins of civilian cars and his own f(gunshot)ing billion dollar plane, wihout hesitation. Is that credible on any level at all besides a pre-pubescent mind????

also, in the first movie John McClane is a regular NY cop backed up by arrogant LA cops and arrogant feds. In the sequels he's a superhero. I always thought the reason he was brought back in DH3 worked for me, but after seeing it in theaters I always figured that if they were ever going to do a DH4 the premise should logically be that he's in charge of an anti terrorist squad. It would make perfect sense since he'd have the skills and experience, and the "coincidence" thing they pulled in DH2 with every character except for Argyle being in the same place again for a terrorist attack didn't even work in DH2 so no point in trying it again.

should do a buddy comedy about two directors who insist on acting even though they can't. The main crux of the plot should revolve around the fact that everyone knows it but them. </p>
I don't think I'm going to this. I kinda got over it.

Jesus, Vern you sound like fucking Confuscious or some shit.<br><br>Thanks for the review, because now I know I won't see this in the theater (paying for it wise) and I will see it when it hits video... I only hope to Christ Above, that they don't put out the rated (PG-13) first and then wait a few months to milk the UN-RATED version for more $$$.<br><br>And, what the hell happend to the Walter B. Q & A?

Bruce admitting he voted for Bush and saying he watches The Factor frequently. Somewhere Harry is spinning in his pool sized salt water deprivation tank waiting for Blair Brown to turn into a sand dune.

Definitely worth a watch. Sure some of the stuff was ridiculously unbelievable. And the PG-13 language was disappointing. But it was a Die Hard movie in spirit. Fun intense action. I thought the cast was great. Bruce was awesome. And I was not disappointed in my purchase. Here's my order of Die Hards from best to worse: 1-3-4-2.

Phoenix: No CGI in Batman Begins? Then what was all that shit with the monorail? Look, Batman Begins is probaly a better all around movie. No way in hell is it a better action movie. I liked that movie alot despite the terrible action scenes. The fights are all shaky cam closeups, or they set up a big fight with ninjas and then he slides down a hill instead. I did like the car chase, but not the monorail. But if that's the type of action you want, the kind where you can't tell what's going on and it's boring and you just want them to start talking again, then you are right to avoid LFODH.<p>
Tom: Honestly I don't know what the fuck Quint was talking about on that one. I didn't know who the guy was and didn't notice anything wrong with his performance. I was pretty surprised to see Quint single him out, must be some sort of personal vendetta or maybe Quint was doing it on a dare, "hey dude I dare you to randomly single out some actor from Live Free or Die Hard and complain that he was terrible - THEN say that you liked the Kevin Smith scene the best!"

obviously I agree with you on the cursing. But personally I never liked that he always says "yippee ki yay" in every movie, ESPECIALLY in the third one where it's clearly dubbed on after the fact. That shit makes me cringe.

about BB, but it is such a testement to that film that even with poor action it is still an amazing film.<p>Imagine how good DK will be if this simple fault is sorted out.<p>Like I said before about LFODH, I'd rather well done PG13 action which clearly establishes what is going on in relation to what and has actuall tension than blood soaked action with swearing which you can't tell wha tis going on and lacks any tension.<p>I'm going to get hell for this but the trailer for John Rambo showed lots of gore but it didn't look like good action. It looked like all the bad guys will just stand there and Rambo will shoot them. It will just be a montage of violent deaths rather than any intense well constructed action.

I"m telling you, Vern, your reviews keep me comin' back. Keep 'em coming and thanks so much for such a well-written, informative, honest piece. <br>
<br>
Man, seeing McClane NOT cuss in this will have the exact same effect as hearing my grandmother have sex. It just ain't fuckin' right, man. It just ain't right.

I think I want to invent a game where every time you drop Seagal's name or one of his movies in a review, you gotta drink. I absolutely fuckin' LOVE IT!!!!!!! I'm telling you... it keeps me coming back. Thank God for Seagal, his pony tail, and Vern's reviews.

call you an industry killing movie hating twat for downloading this movie but with Fox's attitude recently I must say well done.<p>Still don't understand people who watch movies on their computer in shitty quality that some guy has filmed in the cinema.<p>Not really watching the film are you, just a rough approximation of the film.<p>Kind of like seeing a painting on a postage stamp.

until an hours worth of film was squashed into the last 20 minutes.<p>What was with Venom just bumping into Sandman down an alley and in a 10 second conversation they had joined forces and then suddenly cuts to MJ being trapped in a car with no explanation as to how she got there.<p>I swear with an extra 20 minutes that film could have been on par with Spidey 2.<p>The first hour and a half was brilliant. Loved the dance scene, Mj and Harrys cooking date, was all just really fun and had real heart.

I'm back bitches... just to say: this was NEVER going to be as good as the first one. If you expected it to be you need a f-in brain transplant.
Anyways, i'll check it out and determine how much I hate it and everyone remotely connected to it. Peace and hi, again.

as the violence looked in the John Rambo trailer it didn't really look that good.<p>It looked like the action in Rambo 3, essentially just a montage of people getting shot and exploding.<p>Gory but no tension what-so-ever.<p>If Vern is right then the action in LFODH is much better.<p>I miss the swearing but action doesn't really need blood to work.

Can anyone explain what they were trying to accomplish at that power plant? It seems to me you could remove that entire section of the film (especially since right before McClane and Mac get there, they are talking about going to see the Warlock) and it wouldnt really have any effect other than the sudden disappearance of Maggie Q.

I think thats where alot of things got messed up in that last twenty minutes There should have been a actual fight scene between Sandman Venom and they should have shot the scene where they Kidnap MJ. But like Vern Said I think he right this was Sam Raimi way of saying I'm not this anymore.

had been a couple of scenes developing marco flint more and like you said a slower build to the last fight which showed them kidnapping MJ the movie would have been great.<p>I think Rami's heart was still in it but he just couldn't fit it all into the length of the film.

wasn't that good. Just seemed like it was them hitting each other over and over again. Harry just shot missiles at Sandman until he was defeated. It was like a boss in a computer game.<p>One thing about the film was that every second was put to use. There was no point where I felt even slightly bored.

to make all the kids go 'whoa cgi cars and stuff, cool!' i don't think they are that unbelievable comapared to surfing a dump truck.<p>If you think about how crazy and over the top the fire hose bit was in DH in the 80's or the ejector seat bit in DH2 in the 90's these are no more unbelievable.<p>Times have changed to the oint that if something like the fire hose scene was done now it would be considered quite understated rather than the biggest action stunt of all time as it was viewed in the 80's.

There are plot holes, and a pretty over the top plot. The PG13 thing is obvious that it was an after thought. But the fx and action scenes were well thought out and I had a good time. Definitely a 100x's better than fantastic four. Not as good as Spider-man. generally all the movies this summer kinda suck. This one, as good, at least, as Die Hard 3.

They were trying to stop the terrorists from shutting down a certain section of the power grid that would have taken out power over a large portion of the country. Two other sectors were shut down by terrorists, but then Maggie Q's didn't because McClane killed her and her crew... thus Gabriel channeled the natural gas their way to kill McClane off.

This summer has to be the worst year ever for blockbusters. And no, I'm not referring to box office
grosses. I'm talking about the lameness of EVERY SINGLE "blockbuster" so far this year. We are fed mediocrity, and by God I'm tire of it!!! Sigh, but nothing will change. Why should it, when crap movies make a bundle of cash. Sheesh.

Its funny I summer wher we get Three major comic book movie a movie based on beloved ccartoon sereies, the return of John Mclain, and the biggest pirate movie ever the saving grace would be a movie based on a book about a boy wizard...and The Waitress

and the Simpsons.<p>Next year is going to rock with Dark Knight, Iron Man, Incredible Hulk and Indy 4. I know 3 of them are sequals but at least DK and Hulk are not 3rd instalments and any summer with Speilberg is a good summer.<p>I can gurantee though that even if all them films get perfect reviews they will not make as much money as the films of this summer.<p>In 2005 hollywood made less money than ever or something. The press said it was because people didn't go the cinema any more or the films that year where rubbish but the real reason was that the films where better than usual.<p>War of the Worlds, Batman Begins and Sin City where all brilliant films but not brilliant popcorn fodder.<p>Batman was the big summer movie but it was too inteligent and not simple enough to draw in the same crowds as a combination of Spidey 3, shreck 3, Pirates 3 and TF.<p>Funny how the better the films released means probably less money for hollywood.<p>Hopefully next year will prove this theory right.

After watching Undisputed 2 and seeing him whooping ass while looking like Affleck on 'roids... how can I say no to this movie now? Hollywood needs to keep putting this guy in more movies. He could be the second coming of Dolph!

you just don't give a shit. You could give a rats ass about the following frame.
<br>
<br>
My favorite part is when they are trying to steal the BMW. They go through this whole hassle of boosting this car. It's suppose to show geek dudes "cleverness". But the best thing abut is when they pull out of the parking space they pass by a sedan. Way to go geniuses. Way to waste time. Why go through the hassle when all you had to do was hot wire the sedan parked in front? Silly I tell ya. Clever... whatever.
<br>
<br>
I couldn't stop thinking that the powerplant looked like the place where Princess Leia was held hostage on the Death Star.

Don't be swayed by all the negative PG-13 crap. i went with a good friend and he didn't realize it was PG-13 until after I told him when it was over. There was cursing, just not the F-word. A few sh*ts and d*ckheads.
But the action scenes were great. The plot was as good as DH3. (The ending for that movie killed it for me, from the time he had SLJ pick the lock with the piece of steel cable lodged in his arm until he shot the helicopter out of the sky with one bullet and a power line).
The only thing that almost kills this one is the scene with the F-35, (but hey, I'm in the AF and any movie with planes in it always lets me down! The harrier scene from that one killed and otherwise good Arnold movie. Plus that's why I have such a distaste for DHII: Die Harder) This scene isn't quite as bad as the True Lies harrier, and that's a good thing!
This is definitely a Die Hard movie. McClane is still McClane. I was pleasantly suprised. The sidekick was surpsrisingly good, but I think I do like the loner McClane a little better.
Anyway, I'm torn on the second and third, but I'd go with this ranking: DH, LForDH, DHWAV, DHII:DH
The only thing good about DHII (besides Bruce Willis) was that it had Motherf*cking DJANGO playing General Esperanza!!

I agree are pretty cool movies (True Lies has some problems but Heat is a classic). When I was in high school, Rambo II was a HUGE hit. Everyone thought it was the best action film EVER. I agreed back then. Now as an adult when I tally up my list of action films, most of what I consider "classics" are from the 60's and 70's. And I wasn't even born when some came out. I think the term "less is more" works for cop movies. Look at To Live And Die In LA. Fucking intense movie. When someoen is killed in that film, you FEEL IT. Today's movies are numbing. You mention Face Off- Watching a room filled with FBI agents getting killed by a chick with a machine gun is silly, insulting and has no punch. It's emotionless noise. Same goes for an MTV style slick-ass production like The Rock. There's just no investment in the characters. In Die Hard, I was with McClaine the whole time. I LIKED him and got to know him. I CARED about him. Fuck it. I'm not seeing this movie in any form as the last 2 sucked for me anyways. I may see Rambo IV though. Still hoping.

What I meant to say when talking about the airplane scene in LForDH was (but hey, I'm in the AF and any movie with planes in it always lets me down! Ex: True Lies. The harrier scene from that one killed and otherwise good Arnold movie. Plus the absolutely can't happen airplane crap essential to the plot in DH II. That's why I have such a distaste for DHII: Die Harder)

If you can't look past the fact that it doesn't have gratuitous swearing or unnecessary volumes of blood, of course you're not going to enjoy the movie.
As much as I loved both in the first movie, and as much as I feel like it does indeed give an extra kick to the movie, it's far from necessary and hardly a core factor as to whether or not a movie is good.
The action is fantastic in this movie, regardless of whether or not some of it is a bit over the top in regards to realism. Who cares, though? It's a movie. I've definitely seen worse in other movies, and it's far from ridiculous enough to distract me.
As Vern wrote, it's still the same McClane without question. His sarcasm and attitude is the same as always, his token "chortles" when he blows the shit out of some cronie, and his can of whupass is still there too.
CG is far from an issue. I was never distracted by over the top obvious CG in any of the scenes.
On top of all that, it had a lot of great humor in it too. I think the only scene I really did a double-take on and felt like perhaps it should've just been left out was the little "pep" talk he gives Justin Long towards the middle of the movie in the city when they're watching the TV through the diner window. It sounded a bit fake and cheesy, but I quickly forgot about it.
Honestly, the people complaining are just too idealistic in regards to the original movie. Nothing will ever be as good as the original. Even if you could make something as good as the original, it would likely be too similar and people would complain that it was just like watching DH1 all over again. If that's what you want, then I guess I can also safely assume you're into mainstream pop and everything else that's regurgitated on the radio, right?
Come on... watch the movie for what it is. A great action flick that does a great job of keeping the DH spirit alive, even if it's not as gratuitous with the blood, language, and smoking as the first one.
If you notice all that enough to detract from your enjoyment of the movie, there's a good chance you weren't interested in trying to enjoy it in the first place. You just assumed it would be bad because it doesn't have excessive blood and cursing, so it was bad when you watched it.

Planty McPlant. There's never been a PG-13 movie that made me think I was watching an R. They are worlds (and words) apart. PG-13 is for teenagers and R rated films are for adults. Period. This is nothing personal dude, but your review really does sound like a studio employee defending a possible turd of a movie.

"In its bonehead simplicity, the original 1988 "Die Hard " remains one of the great modern action flicks, and 1990's "Die Hard 2 " was a worthy sequel: Both were state-of-the-art smackdowns delivered with craft and leavened with wit. The less said about 1995's "Die Hard: With a Vengeance ," the better. Arriving on the scene 12 years after that film and 19 years after the first, "Live Free or Die Hard" falls in the middle."

I've worked hard to get where I am and it's definitely not in the movie business (my review actually tells you my profession).
Anyway, if you know how I can get a job as a studio exec, fill me in. I don't know anything about movies except that I love watching them, but I can sure help them out when it comes to how a freaking airplane works and what is and isn't possible!
(BTW, in LForDH McClane would have definitely been without fingers from where he was holding onto that F-35!

this. The whole thing is a meandering action film. Just point A to Point B stuff. All the fucks in the world won't make this McClane worth watching. I felt he was one step away from Hudson Hawk actually. He just kept giggling through this film. Maybe he should have went full on with the Hudson Hawk persona. Then at least this film would have been more entertaining.
<br>
,br>
But I'm intrigued to see what Lens Wiseman could do with a better script.

his cameos pretty much suck. If he's not playing Silent Bob, he needs to stay out from in front of the camera. His presence in a non- KS movie usually brings a smile to my face, followed by a groan within seconds!
Daredevil cameo...sucked!
LForDH cameo...sucked!

Mcclane did some pretty fucking cool shit. SOme good fights. Some good action. It just didn't feel like a die hard because I think, lack of other characters. The only characters that are introduced are integral to the core plot. All of the other die hards have minor characters with unique personalities shown in cool ways. The villians were quite empty. And that Elephant guy sucked. But all that aside, it was better than Die Hard 2 and thats all I wanted. I'm looking forward to the R rated cut. This was the first good summer movie.

but it seems that there was no real consequence of them stopping Maggie Q. Olyphant's plans weren't really hindered at all, nor did he even seem too upset about it. Like, if McClane somehow defused the bomb on the subway in Vengeance, Simon would be pretty much fucked as they wouldn't be able to access the vault and such. But here, the power plant was just another part of an unfocused and boring plan.

there was a gaggle of teenagers sitting in front of me smoking weed. they kept getting up and coming and going and seemed fairly disinterested. so I guess that's your PG-13 dollars at work right there. thought the movie was better than I expected, but I missed the edge only an R can really bring... and I thought they should have jacked up the chaos caused by the "fire sale" much, much more. it almost seemed like a minor inconvenience, not a cataclysmic "apocalypse" as one character refers to it as. And whoever said Jack Black should have played Warlock is right on the fucking money. Not to mention his "command centre" looked like it was designed by some ass hat who got fired from MTV's game show Remote Control.

It contained enough of the elements we know as 'Die Hard.' McClane's rough-n-tumble attitude, fear of flying, a Special Agent Johnson--and enough new elements to stand as its own entry in the franchise. Were there things I didn't like? Sure. And I just can't buy into the plausibility of anyone doing what these bad guys are trying to do. Call me naive, but I don't think every automated system in the country is run by a computer that can be hacked and manipulated in the outlandish ways done here--right down to the bad guys controlling where some dude's home webcam is looking. Nope. Matt Long was fine. Kevin Smith was fine--at least fine enough to dispel all the worry. The main thing I didn't like was I didn't feel like I was getting very deep inside McClane's character. I didn't feel a sense of how confused or afraid he was at certain times, unlike the other movies. There's only one part in this flick--the tunnel sequence--where John talks to himself the way he has in past crises. You know the talk, the old "All you had to do was X, John, but noooo, here you are up to your neck in bad guys again" speech. Like DHWoV, the rest of McClane's adventure here is shared with his sidekick, and with Bowman, some federal dude in charge of cyber terrorism at homeland security. I think Olyphant was a weak villain, but creepy enough. His best line comes when he gains the upper hand over McClane and taunts him over a computer screen: "Go ahead, John. Make a joke. Say something funny."<p>
I will say this, though, the reviewers here who said the PG-13 hack job was obvious are correct. You can tell there are parts where the characters originally launched F-bombs, but it's been changed. The term "crucified" is used twice in close proximity by two characters in two locations as a metaphor for someone taking blame for something, and you can tell one of the uses (most likely the latter) was originally "They fucked me" or something instead of "They crucified me for it." But even this somewhat choppy editing wasn't enough to spoil anything for me. The action set pieces here come fast and often enough, and are original enough, to keep the adrenaline high. I want to see this again, like now.

.....the independence that would be forced on the nation by the "fire sale".
Saw it tonight, not bad, it felt less like a die hard film than it should, maybe the cursing and general lack of personal injury to the bad guys, but I feel it had more to do with sound design and and soundtrack. That is what I found really lacking, the original and the third did it so well they should base a class around it. I don't know if that is because of McTiernan's influence or not.
I think Vern is on to something with them wanting a bunch more Die Hards in years to come, the PG-13 rating seems to confirm it, R would make more sense as counter-programming to the Transformers which looks like it is going to own, you'll notice they moved the opening up three days to get a little more distance between the two. I am not joking when I say that I think they might have set-up Lucy for future movies as the sole star, Bruce probably won't want to film one every two years.

i was blown away from the first bullet flying. easily better than 2, and definitley on par with the 1 and 3. i loved it, again i loved it. i want to see it again and again. your crazy if you dont like this movie. and the directors cut is only going to blow me away more.

Bruce, you delivered. And he's still freaking hot. Yes, dare I say...the beaten and bloody Bruce is dead sexy.
Yes, it felt wierd being so slick and effects filled. But it was still the awesome. And I enjoyed it and cheered and whooped.
Thank you Bruce for coming back and bringing John with you. :)

Of course, thank YOU Vern (not Moriarty - my bad) for this honest, down-to-the-point and 100% accurate review. It was far more honest than the hateful biased crap we got from Quint.<p>I liked that you pointed out the highs AND lows. So, thanks again, buddy.

... will be more fun than seeing this... Michael Bay's Trannies starring Pre-Optimus will be more fun than this... sorry, will not spend money on Ellis-like suits "product" of McClane-for-tots. Question: How many dumbasses will confuse McClane with McCain and vote for Arizona Senator thinking he is Bruce Willis?

Who gives a shit? This movie kicked ass. A LOT of ass. Sure, there were no fucks or exit wounds, go see the other Die Hard movies for that. This is a new one. I wasn't disappointed in the least. Color me surprised, but Live Free or Die Hard, for me anyway, is the best action flick since Face/Off. Yeah, I had THAT much fun. Gunshot you if you have a problem with that.

As an action movie it was perfectly serviceable, at times damn near great. But when stacked against the others, it comes off as extremely weak. poor villain, mcclane never butting heads with other 'good' guys, mcclane never having to use his brain, the feeling that the action scenes were designed first, and worst of all, mcclane's whole 'regular guy' persona was totally gone. all of which make it just a regular, albeit better than usual, generic action movie.

of those years, so isn't it understandable that he would start to grow a little more philosophical or matter-of-fact over the last 20 years. It sounds like the character's professional life has settled down since the events of the last film, so why is it reasonable to expect him to be the same jerk he was in the first film? Because he was a bit of jerk, but a lovable one. I wouldn't hang out with him (he would have no use for someone like me), but if terrorists took over my building, or tried to steal all of my nation's wealth, or tried to kidnap my child, I'd like McClane on the job. He's that guy. But he's also that guy whose family has all but disowned him. That'll change you.</p>
<p>Besides, it's a fucking movie. I haven't heard any of those whining about how stupid the latest film is bitch about him strolling across a floor covered in broken glass, and then somehow managing to continue running around to save the day. That shit hurts. He's never been anything less than a super-regular guy. Anyone who says anything else is delusional.

Look man, as you see above I liked the movie. But I am so tired of other people who liked it saying "who cares about the PG-13?" or like above where "abovo" apparently had a huddle after the screening or made everyone fill out a survey and they unanimously agreed that they "did not miss the swearing." <p>
Wiseman and friends did a good job, I think it is conceivable that if you didn't know about the rating or do not watch DIE HARD movies you might not notice it at first, because the action is so intense. But by the time you have seen McClane save the country without even once saying a word he said hundreds of times in the other movies and when the source of the now infamous gunshot sound (SPOILER!) penetrates two bodies at close range without producing a drop of blood, OF COURSE YOU FUCKING CARE ABOUT THE RATING, unless you just don't care at all about the quality of a movie and just want to see any movie they put in front of you and then high five some people.<p>
I commend the filmatists for a good job under the circumstances but stop justifying or congratulating the heartless money hungry scumbags who held the movie back from being a true DIE HARD movie. They are not your friends.

I was still entertained. If "24" can be ridiculous yet entertaining for going on 7 seasons, I can live with a PG13 Die Hard.<p>The fight between McClaine and Maggie Q was great. Sure the bitch was acting like a fucking invincible terminator, but whatever. It was a good sequence.</P><P>This movie kicks Emo Spidey's ass... I may see it again. Goes to show you how a 90's throwback can be better than Pirates and Crying Superheroes.</P>

My quote is "It's *ALMOST* Batman & Robin bad" when comparing it to other fourth movie turds in a franchise. I guess another fourth movie turd better suited for comparison with LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD might be A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 4: THE DREAM MASTER...directed by Renny Harlin. Yes, I'm comparing Len Wiseman to Renny Harlin.

Saw it. Dug it. Still in shock at the fact that it actually didn't suck. But I honestly felt as if I was watching M:I-3 all over again with it's PG-13 level intensity and constant bloodless cutaways and the aforementioned off-sync dubbing and cutting away from Bruce & Justin Long everytime they went on an (OBVIOUS!) R-rated rant. Movie should have been b@lls to the wall R to give it a chance against the juggernaut that shall be "Transformers". 8.8 million on 3100 screens? The fans have spoken.

"As long as you understand that Live Free or Die Hard is nothing more or less than a three-ring festival of intricate stunts and pyrotechnic effects, punctuated with clown routines, you may not mind that it's about a half-hour longer than it needs to be."

I found Die Hard 3 didn't come together very well and had lots of problems, but the story was a great idea and the only way to make a worthy sequel to Die Hard. I find it incredibly frustrating how uneven the film is, especially in the second half.<br><br>I actually couldn't believe they made Die Hard 2, it seemed too obvious to make the exact same movie with a different location. Kinda like when everybody was making jokes about a Snakes on a Plane sequel and wanting it to be Spiders on a Boat or something. Like when they made that sequel to Speed, you can tell they just sat around brainstorming a new vehicle to remake the first film on. I don't think we need McClane to keep getting trapped in one set location, that's just too absurd to keep happening film after film. Sequel ideas like parts 3 and 4 make more sense. Even that movie Hostage where Bruce had to use his McClane skill set in a different circumstance would've made sense as a sequel without getting as silly as DH2.

You know... if this movie makes a shitload of bucks because kids go see it too, then it may actually mean another Die Hard. And if that means another one like this one... I'm happy for that.<p>
<p>
I'm not happy that people who haven't watched this keep saying how much of a POS it is and how dissapointed they are in it. The movie is exactly the way Bruce discribed... it kicked ass and was the best since the original. You know, after 20 years, did it occur to any of you that maybe Bruce doesn't care to play in the same movie over and over and he actually really likes the take Wiseman took on this. I think that is exactly how he felt. After 2 mediocre at best sequels, finally a Die Hard I left the theater feeling happy I watched.

from variety.com "Bruce Willis starrer "Live Free or Die Hard" debuted at an estimated $9 million Wednesday, giving renewed shine to the long-absent 20th Century Fox franchise.
Pic is on track to make a strong showing for the five-day frame, although it's likely to come in No. 2 for the weekend behind Disney-Pixar's "Ratatouille," which bows Friday.
Fox execs were all smiles over exit polls from Wednesday's bow, with the movie playing well across all four quadrants, versus just older males and females who remember the first three "Die Hard" movies.
First bowed in 1988; the third, in 1995.
Based on the survey results, Fox says it expects the movie to have impressive playability.
Fox execs say they can't remember the last time one of their movies scored so well."

Live PG13 or Die Limp will be beaten on it's opening weekend by a cartoon. Oh, how ironic! And considering the +50% drops every sequel has taken after it's opening this summer, Die Limp may be in the $1 theaters before the end of July. Still glad you watered-down the franchise, Fox?

This movie was fantastic! McClane wasn't saving a buliding, an airport and planes, or a city, HE WAS SAVING THE FUCKING COUNTRY! This was Die Hard on the biggest scale possible, save turning the franchise into a sci-fi movie. The only thing that made you aware of a PG-13, was the aforementioned lack of blood, Otherwise it was incredibly kick ass. Loud, crashes, explosions, just everything was done and done well. Fuck the Rat movie, I'm prayin the machine that is Pixar has its' first flop on its hands. This movie is the first of the summer that delivered on all fronts. And F Spiderman 3!

You guys do realize it's only Thursday, right?
Saw this last night, and was completely surprised. It was awesome. You guys need to stop it with the nostalgia trips (I'm looking at you, TINO) and just enjoy the movie.

2 and 3 are good not great so get over it. And at what point was 3 well-directed? It had more shaky-cam bullshit than the Bourne Supremacy. This is an awesome action spectacle, Len Wiseman makes JJ Abrahams look very very silly indeed. Best action flick of the year, but only because Hot Fuzz isn't an action film (it has action in it, it's unequivocally my fave film of 2007, but it is NOT a pure action film). Only Shoot Em Up has a chance of topping it this year.

What the hell do you people give a fuck about how much this movie makes vs the Pixar flick? You don't have any financial stake in either film. There's room for both films in this summer's film roster. It's almost a lock that the Rat movie will be one the big hits of the year, and that DH4 might crack the top ten, but Box Office should be secondary to quality, otherwise you're just like the douchebags at Fox who decided a watered-down version stands a better chance to turn a profit than a fuck-laced DH movie.

this reminded me of the good action movies of the 80s and early 90s. i noticed the lack of cursing just because thats what everyone has been talking about. overall, it probably could have used more blood and swearing. the only bad part of the movie was kevin smith. up until then the movie had great action scenes and a fast pace. and then smith's stupid "why is a cop here?" smug routine really derailed the movie. it didnt really recover from that but overall i would say just barely a 3 star pic. and jimmy fallon's brother actually did pretty good. he wasnt annoying. i will say mcclane's daughter got on my nerves. the whole acting exactly like your dad bit is kind of tired but i guess people are influenced by their parents. oh well. ill probably get the r rated cut when it comes out

There's plenty of drama in the film. And plenty of action. And plenty of things I'd rather the film did not have, like the freeway shoot-em-up, but I'm happy to take a film based on its own merits, and this was a pretty decent DH movie. Maybe we'll get more McClane, with scripts even more appropriate to the McClane mythos, but let's keep something in mind: the characterization of McClane was totally appropriate considering he's a man who has watched his kids grow up, obviously from, a distance, and the overprotectiveness he demonstrates in the film's opening is a key to understanding his modus operandi for the film.

Not that it's a perfect film by any stretch, but it kept the spirit of the others up much better than DH4 did. When I watch all 4 Lethals back to back, even though the quality more or less declines, I feel like I am truly watching a complete series. I wont ever feel that way with DH4 compared to the others. Then again to be fair they had the same director on all 4.

It was a freaking fun movie. Period. I really miss these types of film. No it wasn't perfect...Olphant stinked...that was the biggest problem.
But the flick was fun...so if you just want to have fun have it and freaking relax!

The people have spoken. Ain't It Cool is clearly in the minority in their opinion of this flick. Word of mouth for LFoDH from the masses has been resoundingly positive. I've heard "best Die Hard sequel yet" being thrown around left and right. Couldn't agree more. I've said it before and I'll say it again right now: Live Free or Die Hard is the most fun I've had at the movies this summer.

"When I watch all 4 Lethals back to back, even though the quality more or less declines, I feel like I am truly watching a complete series"<p>Dude what? Lethal Weapon is one of the toughest movies of all time, and the Lethal Weapon is Riggs himself, but the forth film is little more than an ensemble action-comedy that brought in Jet Li as it's only redeeming asset. Seriously, watch the first and then the forth and then say that the two films belong in the same series. Personally, I think LFODH should've been the first sequel as 2 and 3 are just not as good.

I notice that 9 of the 10 people who are complaining about LFDH haven't even seen the movie. And the couple who have? They just didn't like it. Of course... they have to tell everyone else that they suck because they did like it.<p>
<p>
The only one's really complaining are the one's who are taking some stand against turning R rated series into PG13. I understand. But now the movie is out and it kicks ass and missing out on it just to stand up for an R rating is just foolish at this point. It's not like Die Hard movies are important as anything but a good time. Die Hard 4 was a good time. I'm glad to know that Vern has the balls to say what he really thinks for good or bad. I'm really glad that Die Hard kicked my ass. In fact. Think I'll go watch it again right now.

"Live Free or Die Hard" was a hoot. It was not Die Hard, but nothing can be. It was a fresh take on the genre. If anything, what I want from the next Die Hard flick is a fresh take on the genre...again. Maybe turn Lucy loose. I'd go see that. If she's as much a ballbreaker as she was in this last one, Lucy McClane for DH5. </p>

I actually do want to read separate analysis of the film from both Mori and Harry and hope that they can offer their own views on what they think of it and where they think the film went wrong script or director wise (if they both reckon that it did).

I gotta agree with Bronx Cheer. Every one of you that is "bwahaha"ing over box office deserves a fat John McClane headbutt or a PG-13 bullet in the foot. That goes for the "the people have spoken, Die Hard is a hit" bullshit as well as the "actually this is not a hit because some other movie will make more money" bullshit.<p>
Don't you fucking get it? YOU ARE NOT THE STUDIO. You are the guy who WATCHES the movie. Stop living your life following the shadow of some other asshole's money. It's worse than even being a materialist, at least then you are enjoying the fruits of your empty life. What the fuck is your problem getting a boner off of some corporation's earnings?<p>
Did you like the movie? Why or why not? If you refuse to see the movie, that's cool too, you can explain why. This is not the fuckin fantasy baseball league, this talkback is reserved for people who love movies.<p>
Yes, there will be a point later on when it could be a relevant discussion, when it may tell us the future of turning R-rated movies into PG-13 movies. That's fine, but that's not the same as this "your opinion is wrong based on the amount of money this movie has earned" horse shit. Come on guys, I know you can do it.<p>
p.s. Considering this is a positive review, it's kind of weird how many oddly named talkbackers you never seen before keep popping up with lame soundbites about how it's okay to be PG-13. The movie is fine, you assholes. You don't need to come here and brainwash us.

I won't sit here and pretend I am a regular talkbacker on this site. I'm not, but I do enjoy coming here a few times a day to see what is happening in the movie world. With that said, I just wanna get this out their, cause I feel I should, and this is my opinion. The John McClane I have seen in the past was on that screen today when I saw the movie. That is what made this movie for me. To me is was a Die Hard movie....sure their was a lack of F bombs that we have knew wasn't gonna be in it. Sure it may have seemed a bit watered down cause of it. But for what it was, it was a joy to watch and I really hope it does well this weekened. To me their is no such thing as a bad Die Hard movie, and that includes part 2. Maybe I am not as nitpicky as alot of ya, but whatever. I just wanted to say I loved it. Way to go Bruce.

John McClane was more Terminator/Rambo than human (remember the bare feet and broken glass? remember the fear of flying? remember the bad hangover headache?), it's like he tapped in IDDQD or something. He wasn't alone against both terrorists and the other cops like in DH 1 and 2. In DH 1 and 2 the bad guys killed hostages in cold blood on a whim, and here they didn't even HAVE any hostages. In DH 1-3 there were CONSTANT reminders of the Nakatomi incident both in dialogue and action, here there wasn't even a mention. The villains of DH 1-3 were all memorable, cold blooded international assassins. Here, Timothy Olyphant was an emo kid who got really really upset but didn't really do anything offensive compared to the other villains. Die Hard 1 and 3 had awsome soundtracks created from classic tunes, this movie hardly had any music at all. Instead it had the "generic cool action movie blue/brown editing filter" to show how cool it was. Since Die Hard 1-3 didn't use any filter like this, I guess they weren't cool, huh?

I watched all 3 yesterday my friend, a ritual I always perform when going to watch a sequel of any kind, and I still feel this is BY FAR the best since the original (but still far short of it). And I've been TBing since 2003. DHWAV is quite terrible (except for the awesome taxi chase across Central Park). A racist slur on a sandwich board as a plot device in a summer popcorn movie just made me feel queasy. I don't even think most of the action in DHWAV is that good either, at least DH2 had some very well paced and co-ordinated action sequences. Trust me fellow TBers, this is coming from an action-movie junkie, this film is "cool as balls" and the only one apart from the first that I will gladly watch again and again and again and again and again and again. I do not photosynthesize either.

Has a studio ever considered releasing a movie at the theater with two different ratings? Imagine if they showed an R and a PG-13 version of Die Hard in the same multiplex theater and really gave customers the choice.

wrote his review(s).<br>
<br>
http://tinyurl.com/2syczd<br>
<br>
He wasn't as easy on it as Vern. And the fucker is LONG. I suspect he might still be writing the review, I haven't even gotten to the end yet.

That would be amazing. Unlike separate DVD releases (P&S/WS) there would be little margin of error (i.e. your stupid uncle buying you the the P&S edition). Thing is, the policies would have to be strictly enforced.

I said I wouldn't go. I know. But it was a bad day at work and dammit I wanted to believe Willis could pull it off. I think he did. It's not as good as the first but it's probably better than the second and third. Yes, it was obviously edited down from an R but it's still pretty brutal for a PG-13. While the extra f bombs and blood will be icing when it comes home, the movie itself kicks ass. Over the top, outlandish, implausible at times, but it carries on the tradition of Die Hard well even if he does face off against a jet. John McClane is back and I had a lot of fun. Bruce Willis plays McClane, not just generic scowling Bruce Willis Action Guy. The one liners, the inappropriate laughter, it's all there. If you dig the other 3 you'll like it. Live Free is one of the best straight out action movies in a while. Yeah, I was shocked too.

that get me to a Talkback. I read this site numerous times a day, and have done so for the past 10 yrs at least. The things that get me to post:
1) Indiana Jones
2) James Bond
3) and now Die Hard
I never thought the third one would ever happen. As a matter of fact, I really had no desire or expectations for a new Die Hard movie. I had relegated DH to a groundbreaking film with a mediocre follow-up in DHII and a decent finale in DHIII, a late 80s movie series that set the bar for action movies to come (much like Indy Jones did in Raiders in the late 70s). I did not know they were even making a new DH until I saw a teaser poster or the like on this site. So some of us oddly named posters that have never been seen before have been here lurking, but only a few topics bring us out of the woodwork.
That being said, there are some plants around and it is sneaky and underhanded for them to come and trick us out of hard earned money for a movie they KNOW is bad and will leave us pissed off. Fortunately, at least in my opinion, LForDH was not one of those movies. It was a good flick. Yes, it had flaws and could have used a little more blood/cursing, but it still ranks highly to me in the DH series.

not equal quality. I argued the same thing some time ago and only a few people piped up and agreed. I have yet to see LFODH, and I probably won't in the theater, but whether I like it or not will have nothing to do with how much money it made.

And for me to say that, this means there is a freakin' jungle growing in here! We dig that Fox is at war with certain members of the AICN staff. Are they that terrified of the rambling debate about this movie oin this site? It doesn't matter. We don't make these movies hits. We don't help them fail.

Whoever said the Lethal Weapon series maintained the tone of the characters throughout the series was full of crap!
Lethal Weapon I: Excellent movie with Riggs as a suicidal, destructive individual trained in the military to be a complete badass! Riggs was the LETHAL WEAPON of the film title. the final martial arts battle between Riggs and the villain= great stuff.
LWII: Riggs has turned over a new leaf and is no longer a badass. He's just a cop that acts a little loony. LWIII, more of the same. LWIV: Apparently he forgot all of the martial arts skills that made him the LETHAL WEAPON from the first movie. Jet Li kicks his ass numerous times. Jet Li the only good thing about the movie. LWI was the only really good movie out of the bunch. LWII was OK. LWIII seemed like a rehash of LWII. LWIV made to cash in (but hey, we did get Jet Li in the states for a few movies because of it, even though all of the US made Jet Li films pretty much sucked!)

C'mon, Mr. W, get yer ass back in the Talkbacks and blow the roof off the place.</p>
<p>I've seen four movies in two days: yesterday was "Live Free or Die Hard" and "La Vie En Rose," today was "Eagle vs. Shark" and "Black Sheep." In order, I like them thusly: LFoDH and Rose tied for first, Black Sheep, and then Eagle a distant fourth, though it was cute as hell. So if DH4 can tie a movie about one of my favorite singers, then it must not suck too much.

Not sure about that. I know AICN has a lot of readers, but has this site really killed any movie's chance of being a success or failure? I remember something a few years back where some studio was upset harry or one of his staff got an early review on a movie and it was negative, and they tried to stop him from posting it or something like that (Seems like it was Batman and Robin) But it was proven it wasn't early reviews that stopped it, becauseit had a record breaking opening weekend then dropped something like 70% the following week and was universally panned by fans and mainstream critics alike. I think they should let LForDH play out and see how it does. Posting on these talkbacks won't help it's chances of success or failure.

There's no point in worrying about whatever goes down on this or any other movie or fan site because they don't have any effect on box office. Summer movies are review-proof (hell, most are). But this doesn't stop corporations like Fox from trying to eliminate a mouse with a SCUD. I sometimes have my doubts about how far studios go to combat negative reviews or word-of-mouth, but there are so many new or unfamiliar screen names in the DH4 TBs that I agree with Vern. Something planty this way comes.

Listen, just saw this and yes, it is not DH1. Tim Olyphant can't hold Alan Rickman's jock, and the whole fighter jet piece near the end was yes, completely bogus. But its a good movie that yes has its issues. Shouldn't those of you who wish to blast this put your energy towards what really sucks out there, i.e. Spidey 3 or FF2?? My God, LEN WISEMAN IS NOT JOEL SCHUMACHER DESTROYING BATMAN!!News flash here- DieHard 1 is what it is- YOU CAN'T TOP IT!! Mary Winstead is hot, Justin Long is better than I thought he'd be (definitely better than DH2's Marvin), and Kevin Smith, while not an oscar winner here at least holds his own for the 5 minutes on screen. Yes R would have made it better and hopefully the DVD set will give us that version- but get over it losers. Get a hug from a loved one and have them tell you that everything is gonna be ok- because it will!!

Man, Alan Rickman can't be topped. his villains are so great. DH1, Quigley Down Under, Robin Hood: PoT. He has no equal.
So here we go:
Ranked accoriding to villain:
DH
DHWaV
Tie for DHII and LForDH.
Tim Olyphant wasn't bad. He just wasn't that sinister or cold-blooded. I do like the way McClane finished him, but it ended up being a little anti-climatic, just like DHWaV. McClane hasn't really gotten to personally kick the ass of the main villain in any of the movies. He dispatched Hans with the gun taped to his back, knocking him out the window. Blew up the plane with William Sadler in DHII. Shot the cable into the helicoptor in DHIII. But for some reason Olyphant in LForDH made me really want to see McClane whup his ass. Maybe because he was kind of a weany and was only bad because he could talk a little crap. Don't know.

...it is not great, but does not suck, and the action is way over the top, and the PG13 does suck, and McClain is pretty much invulnerable.
This does not make a film that will get me into the theater sorry.

the point of my review was that it was a good movie, and if the only reason you weren't seeing it was because of its PG-13 rating, you were doing yourself an injustice. It was better than any of the summer blockbusters I've seen so far this year, better than at least one of the previous sequels (DHII), but nowhere near as good or groundbreaking as the original. It is good, bordering great. But has some faults that hold it back. I just wanted to show people that were uncertian about the movie that if you like the DH films, it probably wouldn't be a waste of time for you. But if you are really that uncertain, wait for the DVD and give it a rent where it'll only cost you a couple of bucks. Hopefully some of the theatrical edits will be dropped from the DVD, or at least give us a choice from theatrical version or uncut version. But I was happy with this 4th entry.

WTF? Anyway I told Bruce he would get my $ if he chatted here and so I went today. Not too bad but I'm looking forward to the unrated DVD. I'll see DH4 again with the wife this weekend so Walter B will get a double dip from me. I did enjoy the flick and after renting TRANSMORPHERS last night I needed something to get that stink out of my mind. TRANSMORPHERS is less than meets the eyes and don't be fooled by the DVD cover, nothing in the movie looks as good as that artwork ( and it's more of a ALIENS rip-off, again, than a TRANSFORMERS rip-off.)

Thanks for the good review, man. I agree with about 85 percent of what you've said about "Live Free or Die Hard." Especially about Timothy Olyphant (sp?), he had his moments, but was, overall, a pretty weak Die Hard bad guy. I see him better as a number 2 bad guy. I'd like to see somebody more convincing in Die Hard 5 (if it's made) like Anthony Hopkins. Although he's really famous, and it probably won't happen, I'd love to see Hopkins as the main bad guy in a Die Hard flick.... Him or Gary Oldman. Both damn good actors that fit the evil Die Hard mold in my opinion.
They got away with a lot of violence in this one...at least more than I expected. I'd actually rank it above Die Hard 2. To me, Die Harder is the worst of the bunch...although an entertaining action movie.
*Warning, moderate spoilers*
The way McClane smashed into Maggie Q. was really grand.... And the way he taunts Gabe on the phone (walkytalky) is almost just as good...pure McClane. It's reminiscent to that scene in Die Hard 3: "Attention, attention. Nils is dead. Nils is dead, fuck-head...and those guys from the bank...."
If Die Hard 5 is actually ever made I'd love to see a cameo from Samuel L. Jackson. It'd be great. No, it'd be great. And we have to see Holly and John's son.

Wow guys, is the fact that I enjoyed this movie on an extended stay in the USA (my first trip and I must say I'm enjoying Martha's Vineyard very much) indicative of me being a plant? I just wanna know Mr Bronx Cheer who exactly are the new TBers? I just hate the thought of people thinking I'm a fucking plant. I live in the South West of England for fucks sake, in "Gods' Country".

But it surprised me, it was actually pretty good. Was it die hard material, no. They messed up the main character to much for that. However, the overall tone was still epically bad ass. The one major bitch about this movie is the fact that the movie doesn't even try to hide that it was dubbed, its stupendously bad.
Also I actually liked the mac kid more as a side kick than mofuckin' jackson. It just kind of fits a bit better. As for everyone bitching that he uses a mac in this movie (it worried me as well), the fucking thing gets a virus and blows the hell up, no worries there.
Personally, I thought the movie was a pretty bad ass flick. I can only imagine how epic this movie would have been if they didn't cut out all the shit they did (its obvious where they cut stuff out of, it doesn't add up). Definitely a re-watchable movie, better than most of the shit that the studio companies have turned out this year (only one I have liked this year has been hot fuzz).

I didn't mean to force everyone to declare their non-plant status. There's no witch hunt or anything. The specific post I was thinking of actually was by "thereviewer," who wrote, "Not Rated R? I didn't notice, or care, that it was a PG-13 movie, in no way did I feel like it was lacking anything. I thought it was the second best Die Hard made." And that's it.<P>
I mean come on, "thereviewer"? That's really a screen name? And then all it says is the two things Fox marketing needs to drill into our heads: that it is good and that we are not sissies for watching a movie with a rating for children and babies. If "thereviewer" really is a real talkbacker then he or she can say so and I will take their word for it, with apologies.<p>
But I mean, come on. "thereviewer"? Doesn't that sound like the only fake screen name some lackey in marketing could come up with? At least it should be "Darth thereviewer."<p>
p.s. I believe this is the first time I have accused someone of being a plant, so I will probaly be wrong, I'm new at this.

but sadly have just too depressed an outlook and am not enough of a whore (although am somewhat of a whore) to shill crap for my paymasters. <p>It's not fair all I do at work is post here anyway, so someone should pay me for it.

Either he was FBI or NSA, but I can't find his credit. He looked and sounded familiar, I first thought of Theo from the first one, but he didn't fit, even though I definitely knew his face and voice. If they had cast Gilyard as that guy I would have left with a big smile.:D
I think this movie paints for us vividly the inequity of the rating system. I saw BloodRayne (yes, I know, I'm an idiot) it was rated PG-13. It had a sex scene that made soft-core porn look tame, blood everywhere with the associated ultra-violence and a lot of nudity beyond the sex scene. How in the fuck was it PG-13 and 300 was R, or why was Grind House forced to trim back to get an R. The only difference between it and these were language for one and budget for the other. Just because BloodRayne looked like it cost twenty bucks and a six pack to make doesn't mean it should get a free pass. The reviews process is such bullshit anyway, don't confuse it even more with double-standard on top of double-standard.
BTW, Vern, way to put foot to all the box office ninjas and haters around here. These talkbacks can display the best and worst of the internet, there is far too much of the latter around here.

ok, for the record, I enjoyed it. A B-, not any better or worse than "...with a Vengeance." But...(spoilers, obv.))<p>
After they knock out phone communications, how can Justin Long speak to OnStar or whatever to get the car started????<p>
After the terrorists BLOW UP the power grid, how can they turn the power back ON in Lucy McClane's elevator???
<p> Why does a trained F-35 pilot use the plane like a garrotte? It's not a close range weapon, dickhead, you don't have to sneak up on the truck so that you have to dodge freeway debris. Fire 5 missles from a mile out, hell a hundred yards out, then go home and call it a day. Imbecile and horrible shot. Retarded.<p> And why does the government have a back-up plan to divert all national info to one central location in case of a terrorist attack, but fails to plan for ARMED FUCKING GUARDS to protect that info??? Oh, yeah...fucking Bush.
<p> Oh, and in one review here (Quint? Capone?) they were bitching about the lack of blood in the "you-know-it-when-you-see-it" scene , which I assume is when the henchman fell into the I-don't-know-what-the-fuck-they-are spinning blades of death. In defense of Die Hard: I believe he was frozen by a blast of Nitrogen, so he just kind of crumbled like an ice cube. Hence, no geyser.

Are the whole bunch of aicn staff.
You guys go on a witch hunt, while you let Tarantino, Rodriguez and god know who massage your dicks so that nerds will flog to their latest. Talk about hypocrites !
Also, I wouldn't be too proud re Die Hard stuff, if I was responsible for Mc Tiernan artistic demise re Rollerball...

But I was agreeing with Vern that there was something verdant and lush going on here...as it is, he seemed to have one TBer in mind. As it is with any sort of conspiracy, once the suspicion has been planted (no pun intended), one starts to see conspirators everywhere. If I had one person in mind, one person who I am certain is a plant, I'd have to say that person is------green.

While I doubt Bruce will do a Die Hard 5 film, if he did, it'd definitely probably be the last one, but at least he could make it a contractual obligation on Fox's part, that he'll only sign on for it, if it's an R rated film. Bruce couldn't do that with this, as he contractually owed Fox another Die Hard.

Die Hard 4 was a total blast. I grew up watching the die hard films and they hold a special place in my mutated enlarged heart. Die Hard 4 was a huge relief after a summer of sup-par sequels : FF42, Hostel2, Spiderman3, etc.. have all fallen flat in my opinion. Spider Man 3 was so bad that I was hoping John McClane would show up and "Yippie Kay Aye" Tobey Maquire in his tiny balls..<br><br>
And now finally here we have Die Hard 4. A gift from the movie Gods to make us, laugh, cheer and enjoy what summer movies SHOULD be. Justin Long was great, Mary Elizabeth Winstead was an inspired Lucy, and last but not least Bruce kicked some serious ass playing John fucking MCclane.
The villains were some of my least favorite in the series, but how can you ever compete with Hans Gruber?. . . AKA Severus Snape. Maggie Q essentailly played an evil version of her MI-3 character. <br><br>
Do you self a favor, check your negativity at the door and watch John MCclane kick some terrorist ass this weekend. You won't be disappointed.

I felt like they just remade 16 Blocks. Does anyone else think 16 Blocks was originally Die Hard 4? Anyway this movie so far is the best of the summer. Spider-man 3 really made me mad with the last twenty minutes. Pirates 3 was one of the worst movies ever. So DH4 and 1408 are the winners so far. I'm seeing it again monday and I'm actually looking forward to it.

.... it sucked. It felt like they took some lame Cyberway spec script, and changed the names to fit the DIE HARD universe. It's a shame too. It's all about expectations. If it wasn't supposed to be a DIE HARD sequel I'd probably be saying it was Bruce Willis' best action movie in a decade.

not directing this one.
Hell, Harry buried McTiernan career forever (while the John paid him the plane, hotel, food etc to preview Rollerball) with his paper. All of Mc Tiernan problems go back to that stinkin review Harry wrote.
So I would restrain slamming any Die Hard movies if I were you guys : YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BURIED THE FRANCHISE if we follow your nerdy logic.
SOME EDITORIAL STANCE PLEASE, quit your war against Hollywood.

...as far as misguided sequels go. John McClane playing with action figures, talking to Kevin Smith, and joking about Boba Fett? What were they thinking???????????? That's almost as bad as the dance number in B & R... it feels totally inappropriate, like they were trying to make the worst movie possible. Everything else is a loud, fast-cutting, Michael Bay, Underworld-esque headache... basically, this movie is exactly what we all feared it would be. The few character moments that exist seem artificial and phoned in, and I don't know how Vern can criticize the action in Batman Begins because the action in this film is completely incoherent. I could almost never follow what was going on, in terms of the action or the plot, and as with the Underworld films, I felt really bored most of the time. I must have checked my watch five times. I'm not even going to talk about the scene with the fighter jet on the highway... I don't want to sound overly negative, but I regretted seeing this movie and wanted my money back.

I'm so with you there. Now, I don't know whether you rate the 'Bridge scene' in Mission Impossible 3, but I do, and listening to the commentary you'll hear just how much effort is made to keep the viewer aware of the geography - who is doing what where etc. This is one are, I think, where Spielberg really is a genius: his best action set-pieces are all the better for being crystal clear. DOWN WITH RANDOM MAYHEM!

I hate to use R-rated language with you here bud, but that is definitely the stupidest shit anybody has said in this talkback. Harry is responsible for John McTiernan not directing LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD because he admitted the scientific fact that ROLLERBALL was a piece of shit? There are about 7 ways that is an idiotic statement so let's go through a couple of them. First of all, are you really telling me that because Harry was flown to an early screening of that movie you think he should've written a positive review of it? That is your idea of integrity and you want us to take your opinion seriously?<p>
A Harry review could never make or break a movie, especially a movie like that that most people aren't interested in and turns out to be boring sub-DTV garbage. The only thing that could've made that movie do well would be if it was good, and even then I'm not sure it would've made much money. But that's a pointless hypothetical because that was a terrible, terrible movie. Are you telling me you like it? Because if so you are literally the first person I've ever heard of who liked it. More power to you, but the rest of the world disagrees and that's why it's such a blight on McTiernan's record. Not because Harry didn't like it.<p>
And also, when they were hiring directors for this movie I doubt the word ROLLERBALL was ever mentioned and if so not as many times as the words 'if he is convicted.' If you're gonna point fingers and blame someone other than McTiernan I guess it should be the FBI agent he lied to in order to be accused of perjury. He was looking at possible jail time so Fox couldn't hire him. He did apparently end up as some kind of consultant/producer, but at the time it would've been too big of a risk to rely on him as director.<p>
Luckily that must've been straightened out now because he's doing that new movie with all the car chases. Hopefully that will not be in any way like ROLLERBALL. Or if it is maybe at least you will like it.<p>
thanks Stamper

How come nobody else has bitched about that? That's huge, man! Lol. Did I say people who say LOL are gay? (Love you, Vern, and I will be seeing this hoping to agree with you once again... in a very long ongoing list of agreements)

I don't know man, I agree with you in many ways but I sort of disagree too. First of all, I'm not sure that "if it's a good action movie you can take out the action scenes and it's still good" test really makes much sense. Don't they say the opposite for musicals, that if you take the songs out and it still makes sense then it's not a good musical? Shouldn't the action scenes be integral? I mean even in the original DIE HARD you are gonna lose a whole lot of characterization if you take out the action. One of my favorite things in any movie is when an action scene is both exciting as action and an emotional peak for the characters. An example would be the old Jet Li movie MY FATHER IS A HERO where Jet Li and his son fight together for the first time and it's exciting both because it's great to see Jet Li swinging a kid around on a rope and because it is satisfying to see this kid who grew up being told his father was a scumbag being able to fight alongside him and know for a fact that he is actually a hero. That to me is the ultimate goal of a great action movie, the intersection of badass action and emotional character moments.<p>
Also, I think especially if you include martial arts films there are many great action movies where the story is pretty good but still, you take out the fights and you got nothing. I mean, I like the whole gimmick and the characters of ENTER THE DRAGON (generally considered one of the all time greats) but no, I don't want to watch it without the fights. I think it's possible to be a good script and still be clearly designed to link action sequences together. It's not easy to do otherwise more movies would do it better.<p>
And as for BATMAN BEGINS, I don't really consider it an action movie and that's good because honestly, to me that would almost be a better movie without the fights. The story is very well done, but I don't agree with you, I can't see what's going on in alot of the fights and that's why they aren't exciting at all (to me anyway). There are certainly worse shakycam fights and there are better (I don't have a problem with most of the action in the two Bourne movies). But man, if that Batman movie had some real gracefully performed and staged fight sequences that movie would've kicked my ass. The guy goes up to a temple and spends years training with ninjas and then all we get is a blurry closeup where you can't see what his arms and legs are doing! I mean I actually sort of felt like they DID cut out the fight scenes, so I guess it does pass your test.<p>
Anyway thanks for the thoughtful discussion of this subject, I appreciate it. I shouldn't be a zealot about this, I understand there are different approaches that are legitimate. But personally I don't like the style of alot of the action movies they make today, with the Michael Bay/Simon West/Tony Scott quick cuts and random closeups being a much bigger problem than the shakycams. LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD was refreshing because it didn't have either of those problems, and it reminded me how to get excited about action sequences on the big screen.

"Live Free or Die Hard," from 20th Century Fox, took in $9.1 million Wednesday on its first day of national release, the studio said.
<br>
Still, Willis' John McClane character, who has handily defeated effete Eurotrash in the past, is destined to find himself overshadowed this weekend by a Parisian rat with a refined palette.
<br>
The fourth "Die Hard" didn't set any records -- the current record-holder for an opening Wednesday is "Spider-Man 2," which bowed to a single-day gross of $40.4 million on June 30, 2004.
<br>
By the time the dust settles Sunday night at the North American box office, Remy the rat, the animated hero of Pixar Animation Studios' "Ratatouille," is expected to emerge as the weekend winner, outgrossing Willis' time-tested and constantly embattled ex-cop.

I mean really, what does that prove? Compare Night at the Museum and Rocky Balboa. Rocky was loved by quite a few here on this site, yet that bullshit Museum movie made shit loads more money. But which was the better movie? I'm not saying the rat movie won't be good for what it is, but all the kids are going to be running to it. Regardless, this movie was better than I expected, and do have to agree with Vern's assessment of it.

Good points Memory. I guess one main thing here is that a great action hero you love to watch them just talk or grimace at somebody, they don't have to be flying or punching to be cool. This goes for John McClane, Indiana Jones, Daniel Craig as James Bond, Blade, Snake Plissken. All those guys are at least as cool talking with another character as they are shooting or falling. So your enjoyment of this movie will largely depend on if you see this as still being John McClane or not.

I just think people are "celebrating" the box office take that this film, or any film they like, garners because the typical TBer uses that argument to "win" a debate. I'm sure many people have had Box Office numbers stuffed down their throat here at AICN, so when it goes their way, well, they do the same thing:) But you're right, it doesn't equal quality. Movies are loved and hated by many different people for many different reasons. So maybe AICN community should declare box office talk THE ACT OF A MORON so we can stick to talking about why and why not we like movies. Good review though, Vern!

Clearly the best summer movie thus far. The action set pieces weren't by the numbers, rather they were pretty inventive. All good action set pieces play like a good story... you have a beginning, a middle, and an end. The middle being the tension and conflict.
<P>
The tunnel scene was awesome... very cool as the lights went out with cars coming in all directions and then Long takes off and McLane screams, "No!".
<P>
The fight scenes were great, especially between him and Maggie Q ("Enough of this kung fu shit" made the theater roar as he beat the shit out of this chick and even ripped her hair out). The elevator shaft was awesome.
<p>
But I'll admit, the jet scene was just stupid. Didn't need to be there at all. But because all of the other action sequences and fight scenes were great, I easily let that go.
<p>
They really nailed the McClane character again too. Glad there wasn't some big explanation to what he's been doing the last 12 years. He was a wisecracking survivor like the first Die Hard and even the second (second wasn't that great overall... but they had the character of McClane done perfectly... everything else was hit or miss... while DH3 didn't really have the character of McClane down, mostly because it wasn't a McClane script to start off with).
<p>
Long was surprisingly good. The daughter filled the void of Holly and had two great lines that played very well as the daughter of McClane.
<p>
Olyphant was hit or miss. I actually think he got better after the second half of the movie started. The line "Come on, say something funny.." was classic. The henchmen were just as good as the ones in all of the other flicks.
<p>
The score was good, with shades of the original in there throughout.
<p>
The Bad?? Kevin Smith. It just didn't play like it should have and it's his fault. Should have been someone like Steve Buscemi. The jet scene as mentioned before was bad. But that's about it.
<p>
PG-13? Only thing I didn't like was the editing and looping at times. They shot an R flick obviously. So the cuts at times made the movie not flow as well as the original. The looping was bad so many times too. Just fucked with the flow.
<p>
It's the best overall sequel in my opinion. Loved it and I have an even bigger reason to get the DVD IF they decide to do the uncut version.

So you saw Transformers? I see your point 100%, but it is based on your opinion of the handling of the movie. If Transformers fails at the box office (it won't I'm sure), don't count on ever seeing a sequel and don't count on anyone else ever taking over the reigns from Bay.

Currently, Live Free or Die Hard has a MetaCritic Score of 69 from the critics, 8.3 (out of 37 votes)from the reviewers. It's currently at 8.4 on IMDB out of over 5,000 votes(ranked #209). But every reviewer at AICN has hated it. I guess I'll just have to see for myself (this weekend. I've had a busy week), but I don't think it's the shitstorm I was afraid of...

Fox's Live Free or Die Hard, starring Bruce Willis, took in $9.1 million when it premiered on Wednesday -- good, but hardly overwhelming -- leading box-office analysts to predict that the stand-out movie this weekend will be the new Disney cartoon starring a rodent whose name is Remy, not Mickey. There is wide disagreement among them about how much Ratatouille is likely to earn, with many expecting it to be the lowest-grossing movie for a Pixar movie ever, falling below last year's Cars, which debuted with $60.1 million.

than Die Hard 2 & 3. just got back from seeing it and i gotta say i enjoyed it. AND it's more fun at the movies this summer than Spidey 3 and Pirates 3. (the ending with the jet is a bit much, but still.) Good Time.

Hmm, I wonder if some of you would have been happier if they'd released the movie exactly as is, but with the R rating put on. I know for a fact that when I catch this one, I'm gonna spend half the time looking for cop-outs and slowly contriving a rant in my head about the dead-eyed shark suits slowly taking over Hollywood and either eating the competition or giving them a shark suit to put on so they can be just like them... *takes deep breath*...whereas if it had the R rating I probably wouldn't even notice the compromises.

like a garrote? Hell Why did the freeway fall down like dominos when they are designed as separate sections and would stay up ( not in a big earthquake like SF but more like the recent Oakland freeway fire that only took down one section of overpass) If your going to drop logic they should of had John McClane jump onto the jet then crawl over to a second ejection seat ( at this point who cares if the F35 has 2 seats or not) and eject right before the plane crashes and as he flies up to camera ala DH2 says " I'm getting too old for this shit " ... I would of laughed but as it is now all I was thinking is why is that pilot killing more people than the terrorist have so far WTF because a good pilot would of just shot out the trucks engine and not 2 miles of freeway overpasses ( was that LONG BEACH Ca.?)

Goes like this:
I remember being 12 and going to the movie theatre. The sun was high that day and I'd just spent the day at the pool with my friends. With my He-Man action figures in my lap, I sat in the theatre and..."
3 paragraphs later:
"So, I saw (insert movie here) today. Here's what others have said.."
2 paragraphs later:
"...and here's what I think."

Hey Vern - If you remember - I was the one who was saying that people who judged this movie, based only on the rating, weren't real fans. (You had a good counterpoint in supposing what people would think if perhaps a sequel to a movie like E.T. was loaded with violence and expletives.) As I said then, the haters have to give the movie a chance before they pass judgement. You mentioned in your posts that you don't blame people who will not pay to see this movie, but, isn't your stance toward the haters as a reviewer, the same as mine. Wouldn't you urge them to give it a chance? (Rather than stand by their decision to boycott?) After all, if the haters got their way, and the movie bombed - that would destroy any chance of the fans getting another sequel - possibly a better sequel. Honestly, how can you not agree with my point that a person who would judge this movie based, solely on rating, is not a true fan? Would a real fan of McClane rather see the franchise DIE than have to take a PG-13 this time around? I think a true fan would DIE HARDER than that.

Vern: I think that many are concerned about the trend of overly commercialized, predicable and formulaic movies.
At the same time, however, it is nice to see a good movie that doesn't have to have 50 expletives in it to justify an good story.
I agree that at times the story demands an unflinching depiction of serous events. Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan come to mind. But, most stories don't.

I am so severly dissappointed.
This is a film nuetered (I can't spell - fuck off). It's balls have been removed and what is left is a disjointed, MTV-edited, ready-for-TBS shadow of what it should and could have been.
I have no more respect for Bruce and that hurts me. He had the power, the name, to make this film his own. And he sold out. He ruined John McClaine.
I would like to pretend this never happened.
PG-13 crippled this film and it is so blatantly obvious.
You don't need an "R" to make a kick-ass action film. Casino Royale proved that.
But this, Christ, this fucking waste of film is an abomination in the eyes of action Gods and it is so clear that what they shot and what they presented are two completely different films.
Trust me. Wait for the unrated DVD. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME OR MONEY ON THIS FILM IN THEATERS. It will only piss you off.
Bruce, you broke my heart. I mean that. I feel cheated. I want my money back, but more than that, I want my Die Hard back. You took that from me.
I don't even know what to say.

It rocked, yes it did. Sad that the RATSHIT might beat it this weekend. If you're on the fence , PLEASE go see this, it was that good. Only Transformers might unseat it as my fave summer movie in 07. But I doubt that.

that Transformers failing at the box office will crush his career, no more than it would crush Spielberg's. Recall that Bay made The Island--terrible POS and he still gets the TF gig. He obviously does what producers want.</p>
<p> ASnd take a look at the numbers the guy generates. Sure, most of us dislike the product his name appears on, but as a director he makes money. According to Box Office Mojo, films he has directed have earned $774,400,400. His average gross per is $129,100,00. Those are respectable numbers. (This is a valid place for a discussion of box office.) Director's are hired because of what they bring to the project. Bay brings bankability. And while he's made a couple of films I can watch and enjoy, I think most of what he's done is dreck. But if I had to make a film about NASCAR drivers saving the world, damn straight he'd be my guy.</p>
<p>Which begs the question: why hasn't there been a "NASCAR drivers save the world" movie yet? Everything else has been done, why not that. I bet it'd be a big hit.

Hi Vern, I always look forward to your reviews, but I gotta diagree with you on this one. One of the things I can not get passed is , if Gabriel created the system that places everyone's money into a back up storage (as Bowman finds out), why wouldn't the Government have replaced it after Gabriel was fired? That's like firing a clerk from Toys R Us and letting him keep the toys to the store. Also, McClane is still a New York cop, it would have been great to have Walter Cobb call McClane back in to duty rather than this guy we've never seen before. This movie dropped the ball then kicked it down the fucking sewer drain.

So I get it, you put in your comment in here. This would be the first time I have ever used a chat.
Yes I lost my cool.
And yes your insane.
So that's that. I'm not saying anything else about that.
But your cute, your funny and I liked you on Dave, I saw it twice it was the best, really really good. And I like it when you wear black and the cream was good. And the Fox channel is really Republican and I'm a countdown girl myslef (you know msnbc) but not a liberal, just into labor right's. And I've only seen the first one I believe in 1988. I like chick movies. The only movie I have seen in a movie theatre in the last 4 years is the Queen and I loved it, the best. I thought everything about it was me. And I'm done. So you know my email use it ....................

I thought it was as good as DH3, not quite as good as DH 1 and 2. The jet sequence was a little "True Lies", and didn't quite feel like DH, but it was cool and it worked. The badguys weren't that great, and I coulda used a little more of that Rafael kung-fu guy. My only gripe was that he didn't smoke, didn't use his old Beretta 92F, and they should have talked a little more about what he's been doing for the past 10 fucking years!

That's what I got from this movie. I didn't think it was awful but it did nothing for me. The effects are outstanding the writing was mediocre, and the actors did what they could with what little they were given. It wasn't enough. Anyway this film was just another unremarkable entry into what has become a downward spirial into the smelly ass juice that passes for film this summer that started with Spiderman 3.

Yippee-ki-yay, Mother-(gunshot). It felt a lot like watching television for that second-and-a-half. Other than that, the movie wasn't all that bad. I forgot all about the fact that McClane wasn't smoking. <p>
I do have to agree that the scene with the jet is not quite right... but, the rest of the way... just recast Kevin Smith's role, as he only served to distract from the flow of the story. Even the Mac kid came off better than Silent Bob. Also, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, wasn't too bad as Lucy McClane. I was afraid her character would be stupid; but she did a good job of echoing Bonnie Bedelia as Holly in the first two films.

I was skeptical about this from day one, but I have to admit that it was a fun ride. Is it as great as the 1st one; hell no, but it's still a fun movie. John MCclane is back, and it's actually a good thing. This was the best action I've seen in a while, and I'll stand by that statement, and I do mean this year so far. I have to give Len Wiseman credit, he filmed very good action scenes. You can see what it going on, and he stayed away from all the quick cuts that gives me a fucking headache. Just by watching this I can tell that he's gotten much better at staging, and shooting action. Now is the movie perfect? No it's not. There's problems, but not as big as I thought there would be. Yes Cyber terrorism is boring, but here it worked for the most part. There are times when the movie comes to a halt while they foccus on the bad guys, but when Bruce Willis is on screen there's never a dull moment. Justin Long did good with the geek role, and he lent a lot of comedy to the movie. I don't want to go on, and on, but I had a good time with this movie, and Vern was right about the parts of the movie where you could tell they were saying fuck, but they dubbed over it for the more kid friendly rating. I counted at least six, or seven times that I noticed, and that was a little distracting. I was happy with the movie, and I would recommend it for fans of the series. I think most of the fans will enjoy it even for the movies shortcomings.

I can't believe that the bar for action movies has gotten so low that this movie is considered to be a good action movie. I'm even more surprised that Vern would even consider this a Die Hard movie. John McClane wasn't even the same character. That McClane wasn't the McClane that I know. It had nothing to do with the cursing either. The only resemblance to the old John McClane was the humor. He was mostly a fake superhero version of John McClane. There was absolutely no grittiness to Bruce Willis performance. The best comparison I can make is to the Lethal Weapon 1 Martin Riggs and the Lethal Weapon 4 version. In the first one Martin Riggs was a crazy SOB but by the fourth he had become a family friendly teddy bear. If there was an explanation about how John McClane quit smoking, cursing, and cleaned up then I might have given it a pass. The truth is this is not a Die Hard movie. 16 Blocks was more of a Die Hard movie then this was. This was the family friendly version of Die Hard. This movie will not stand the test of time. Everyone who saw this will watch the first Die Hard and completely forget about this movie after they've seen what a real action movie looks like. This movie felt the same as Terminator 3. While I watched T3 and I was mildly entertained , afterward I never had any urge to watch it again. McClane has done some ridiculous shit in past Die Hard movies but his reactions always made you feel that he was hurting or that he couldn't believe he really just got aways with what he just pulled off. In this movie he jumps from a flying plane and doesn't even wince in pain. Maybe this was really a sequel to Unbreakable and they changed the name at the last second . This was definitely not Die Hard!!!!!!

"Remembering why "Die Hard" was great, though, would mean remembering that McLane was once an ordinary guy. Afraid to fly, afraid of his wife's success, outgunned by adversaries, but fatally underestimated.
<p>
Three movies later, his indestructibility has become something of a joke, and McLane has morphed into a de facto superhero, sure to survive every chopper crash and five-vehicle pile-up.
<p>
The first movie centered on how much punishment McLane could absorb - now, virtually invincible, he's become a smirking inflictor of pain, and the movie has a weird sadistic edge.
<p>
As for McLane's famous resilience and resourcefulness, they're now superpowers."

I just saw this again. Die Hard 4 was kick ass and better than 2 and 3. How the fuck can you bitch about the 4th movie ruining Die Hard after the pieces of shit that 2 and 3 were? This movie elevated the series from the shitty sequels. I liked the sequels despite the fact they were uneven and half ass because I like Willis as John McClane. I love this one. It's a worthy late chapter in the story of John McClane.<p>
<p>
You guys who say Willis sold out with this movie. You're such full of shit apoligists. He sold out when he made 2 and 3. Like he's been saying. Finally he got to make another great Die Hard movie. I hope he makes another with Wiseman.<p>
<p>
For the record... if the bullshit pressure for a PG13 movie has eased and we get an R movie for 5, I'll be as pleased as everyone else. But as far as sequels go for Die Hard... this is the first one I feel like is a worthy successor to the first.<p>
<p>
Bruce Willis was pissed about the PG13 and he's gotten over it. Dudes. Get over it. If Willis can, so can you. You guys act like you own the fucking story. It's not your fucking story. It's Willis' franchise. The movie wasn't Die Hard 1 but thank god it wasn't Die Hard 2 or 3 either.

Ok, let's assume, as you say, that Harry's review didn't break Mc Tiernan career. Surely he thought Harry could help him save the movie over the suits (the Ellises of Fox) ? Anyway I don't like the movie, I just like the director. And I'm going to flog to Light Hard and see myself what the fuss is about.

How can you type that with a straight face? It'ss not even the same character. Remember in the first one when he's about to jump off the roof with the fire hose around his waist? How scared he was? "Oh John, what the fuck are you doing?" NOT ONCE in this "new DH" do you get a sense of fear or hesitation, he seems cool as hell JUMPING ONTO A FUCKING JET OR FLYING A HELICOPTER (for those keeping score, McClane used to be SCARED of flying..."Fists with your toes",

That's the explanation. The character have changed even by 3, so I assume it's an evolution. He's not 31 scared anymore, he is 52 "I shag all the young birds whose mothers didn't want to give me the time of the day" mode.

And by the way, your comments about the fight scenes in BB are dead on. It's like filming a dance scene and never showing the dancers from head-to-toe in the shot. Fight scenes are like ballet; I want to see the artistry of the fighters, not the "artistry" of the filmmakers.

and another thing
What I really really hate in the business of making films is that everyone talks really bad about everyone all the time and that sucks, Especially people who are getting paid by the person there talking bad about. Now since I am into labor and believe that everyone in the business should be treated the same also "PAID" properly, on time, which would be 14 days within the pay period. With or without unions. The worst part of it is that the people who are paying the bill or making the choices to pay the bill and producing the project to make you look good, DON'T EVEN LIKE YOU AND SPEAK BADLY OF YOU. How in the hell can your vision be communicated out to the world if you are not represented by people who understand your vision. If you do not have the proper people around you to express it for you.
Also the crew on a movie set sees and hears everything. They are the life line to everything you are and represents the world today. From Transpo (the criminals, the drivers, the train workers, hard labor people), the grips and craft service people who are the (service industry, valet....) the camera (advertising...), makeup.... they all represent the world we live in. If they don't like you and if they don't respect you how in the hell can you be taken seriously as a HUMAN BEING. If there saying stuff like, you don't believe in unions or "they get paid too much" that's the everyday person, that's AMERICA.To earn respect you must give respect right back. So intead of just standing there waiting, you can be like Tom Cruise and walk around, talk to people on set, CARE about the everyday person. Show that you care. A simple gesture as talking to a craft service person makes all the difference in the world to people. A simple gesture as talking to your production makes a big huge difference. You want to represent the everyday person, then BE THE EVERYDAY PERSON. Waiving good by before you get into a car isn't the everyday person it's sort of like "THE QUEEN".
See the movie.

When you establish characters in a physical space, you maintain that continuity. When people are dancing, you have to show them dancing...which includes the feet. Otherwise, there's no context for their action. And when you show people fighting, you need to show their bodies engaging each other. No one's saying you can't use all variety of camera angles and compositions, but if you fail to establish the parameteres for the fight, the physical space which includes the combatants, then you fail to give the viewer something critical to understanding what is happening.</p>
<p>Think boxing. Without nthe establishing shots of the ring, the audience, the ref, and the entrance of the fighters, we lose all sense of context. If you cut immediately to fists and bloody noses, while you might some exciting visuals, they mean nothing to us.</p>
<p>I think the world of the Nolan Bros, and I agree with many who complain about the fight scenes in Batman Begins. It's indicative of the trend toward the bullshit MTV-style of filmmaking. Very few filmmakers understand how to put together a film any more. I don't care about intentions; I care about execution. And the fight scenes in BB are poorly executed, in my opinion.</p>
<p>I don't argue your right to your opinion, but I also don't cut a movie like BB a break when it fails in certain regards. I can forgive DH4 its sins. It's like complaining that fire burns. But BB has a lofty pedigree, and I expect Nolan to do his homework and stage fights properly. There is a grammar of film, and his staging of certain scenes in BB made him look cinematically illiterate.</p>
<p>As for pissing on good movies, if it's good (as BB is), it can certainly stand up to some pissing and moaning from someone like me. I have complaints with some of Shakespeare's later plays, but I don't see his reputation taking a hit because of that. Nor does my criticism dim my appreciation of what I'm discussing. If anything, if something warrants debate of this nature, it obviously has merits on which it can stand. I don't see us debating the failings of MAC and Me or Lifeforce.

you are officially my new favorite Talkbacker. One thing, though: there's a huge difference between caring about people and ACTING like you care about people. I've had plenty of encounters with Big Stars and some of them are very good with the Chatting Up Regular People but privately they think we're toads. The truth is that most people are toads: insignificant, overly moist, and a bit too plump for easy mobility.

where Nolan is creating atmosphere and establishing Batman's m.o., that is, terrorize and then take them out. But there were too many times when we couldn't see the physics, the combat. I know he's a man wearing a bat costume. That's why I'm watching the movie! But if he can't fight convincing with no camera embellishments, then I'm not buying the events on a deeper level. The thing that makes some of the gags performed in "The Matrix" work so well is we see the entire event as it takes place. The first time Morpheus and Neo spar, for example. I see their feet and hands in real space. It just works for me better.</p>
<p>Comparing fight choreography to ballet is a pretty valid comparison. If it seems a bit too girly for you, sorry. I have a news flash for you: those fight scenes are fake. There's no such thing as Batman. He's fake. Everything in BB is staged for the camera. Yes, it's all scripted. Just like the freakin' ballet.

Now as much fun as LFODH was, this looks like an action-thriller par excellance. And it very much seems like Greengrass has been listening to the shakycam issue people have with Supremacy. http://tinyurl.com/3yx59a for your viewing pleasure in glorious Quicktime.

You might not like that the Lethal Weapon movies became more comedy-oriented or that Riggs became better adjusted, but they did it in a way that was gradual and made sense.<br><br>In the first film Riggs is still a fucked-up 'nam vet dealing with the recent murder of his wife. Even then he makes a few jokes and by the end of part 1 you can tell he's started to heal by bonding with the Murtaugh family. In the sequels he starts to date again and gets emotional support from the Murtaughs so it makes sense that he's no longer shoving a pistol down his throat every morning and spending his evenings gettings drunk and watching Three Stooges with hookers.<br><br>I guess they could've done a sequel like Rambo were Riggs gets recruited back into the special ops delta super team america force and goes on some crazy mission fucking up third world torture masters, and I would've liked that too, but I'm happy with the way they had Riggs slowly rejoin society and return to being a smartass and a loving husband like he probably was before the war and his wife's murder.<br><br>However, from the sounds of it, this new Die Hard just makes McClane a non-smoking, non-drinking, non-swearing born again Vin Diesel wannabe without explaining any of it and to me that's shitty. The third one made sense because McClane had become a drunken loser and that made sense for his character from the first film. I actually would've loved it if Die Hard 4 started off with McClane in AA.<br><br>"Hi, my name's John and I'm an alcoholic. My troubles started 20 years ago when I overthrew a group of international terrorists resulting in the destruction of Nakatomi Plaza. I was trying to patch things up with my estranged wife but every Christmas these terrorist attacks would keep happening and it put a real strain on our relationship. But I've found Jesus and it's been two years since I had a drink.<br>(applause)

SHUAAAT UP. and see it first.
all i know is that it's not the DIE "R" HARD that i wanted. BUT it sure as hell was more fun than the other summer outings go. so quit your bitchin and try to understand that it is better than DH 2 & 3. just fill-in the blanks.

"Disney / Pixar's Ratatouille cooked up a winning recipe as America's No. 1 movie, opening big with $16.5 mil Friday from a hefty 3,940 theaters. I hear the incredibly well reviewed film (95% "fresh" reviews at Rotten Tomatoes) played right across the board. And, while Los Angelenos are used to applause as the credits roll, there are anecdotal reports of lotsa clapping across the country.
<p>
No. 2 went to Fox's action-packed Live Free Or Die Hard starring Bruce Willis. Expect a weekend in the $31 mil to $32 mil ranges and a 5-day total release of mid to high $40s for this 4th version of the John McClane franchise."

... and honestly, I was not blown away. As an action film, it was certainly far from being bad, but as a McClane adventure, Live Free Or Die Hard simply didnt do it for me. Too many elements take away the Die Hard feel... I felt the lack of "fuckhead" (replaced by "dickhead") and the lack of blood (even though it's true the action was quite brutal for a PG-13). Also the computer stuff was so boring. Justin Long was on the other side absolutely fine. I completely bought him as the computer nerd and he didn't bother me one second. Olyphant was weaker than other Die Hard villains, but gave a fair performance. I didn't like the fact that McClane turned into a cartoonish weapon of mass destruction, and also the fact that McClane basically moved from one plant to the other, killing a few baddies on his way. Again, it didn't feel like Die Hard. I've got to give credit though, to Len Wiseman for not fucking up as I expected him to fuck up. He directed the action really well, and was not touched by the Syndrome Of Michael Bay, thanks god. Also it had its funny moments, but nothing comes close to the chemistry and racial arguments between McClane and Zeus Carver. In the end, this fourth film was really not necessary, it should have remained a trilogy. Without surprise, DH4 is the weakest of all four films, some kind of sub-techo-Die Hard 3. Not a bad film, but not very good either.

yes most people are toads.....but people believe they care.... people may be toads but there simple in there needs so you still don't get it.
shame............
and I am not computer savy, at all I'm a food person............

I thought it was a great, fun flick. Yeah, I also feel there were some holes, and some fucking missing stuff, but overall lots o' fun.
My personal gripes is that there aere a LOT of times that the voices didn't match lips, like when Mac guy talked after before they went to the social security office.
Also, there seemed to be some extra scenes that simply didn't have a purpose from what I could tell. Like why did they enter the police station early in the film, just to leave moments later? All that showed was that stuff was busy, but I think that was clear.
Also... why didn't automatic headlights kick on in the tunnel?
Nits, all of these though.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

It was a lot better than I expected it to be. I actually liked it and I think it's a good Die Hard movie. I wanted more cursing, but it's no big deal. Justin Long wasn't bad at all, the bad guys were good, and the action sequences were kickass. I gotta eat me some Maggie Q...

Definitely a throwback to fare like True Lies with over the top action, but Bruce really sells it...bring on 5. Did anyone else think the elevator/SUV sequence was similar to the Motorhome sequence in JP2:Lost World. Overall, this and 1408 are the best movies I have seen this summer...with Pirates being the worst film I have seen in a long long time.
Oh and you could say i'm a plant, but I live in Alabama and would die from lack of water. :P

He personally kills (i.e. shooting) very few people in the entire film. Many of the bad guys are killed as a result of McClane doing something like launch a car into their helicopter, turn on a gas spray that knocks the guy into a fan, etc. Which I am guessing is how they were able to keep 'the level of violence' up for a PG-13. And this to me says that the film was likely ALWAYS intended to be PG-13 and the odd edits (like Mac kid's horrible dubbing after the power plant explodes) are likely a result of the filmmakers going too far for PG13.

This summer is proving why we keep making bad movies, cuz we'll see it. We make reasons like (it's die hard, or it's spderman we have to give it a chance) why? when so many fucking times we get shit movies. I REALLY believe this is why more and more people are downloading movies. I have NEVER done so because i Prefer the better quality of a theatrical viewing or DVD but i'm gonna do it for LFORDH cuz i just don't feel fox has made an effort to get my $10

I hope this puts the nail into the coffin for this turning R into PG-13 shit.<br><br>It looks like it'll be Hard for this to break a hundred mil. domestic.<br><br>And what happened to the Q & A with Walter B.?

The general consensus is that Ratatouille's box office was lower than expected, while Live Free or Die Hard managed to exceed industry predictions. On top of that, the film's reviews were surprisingly positive.

I just hope that this thing isn't a major success, so IF they make a 5th it'll, hopefully, be an R...<br><br>I still have yet to see it, though, so I may be talking completely outta my ass. But, I'm still thinking on waiting for it to go to video until I see it.

It says, on the fucking poster, "Yippie-kai-yay, mo..." No really, that's what the poster says. The REALLY irony in this is that over here, you need to be 15 to see the movie because they judge it on the violence and not the language.

Sure didn't feel like PG13. The action scenes were TENSE. The shootout in the apartment at the beginning made my wife jump a bunch. Not sure why anyones hating on this. THE movie of the summer so far (until tomorrow when Transformers kicks everyones ass in the sneak preview). Many great one liners. Tons of great action sequences, where is the hate coming from?

...with all the people ragging on this movie before seeing it?<br />
<br />
I understood the concern over the PG-13 rating that had everyone up in arms before the release - and I agreed with Vern's rant on the issue - but the fact of the matter is the <i>most</i> of those concerns turned out to be more or less unfounded.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that the PG-13 rating doesn't make a difference, because that would be lunacy. Being saddled with a PG-13 rating necessarily affected the DIE HARD tone to a certain degree. HOWEVER, Bruce and Len Wiseman and everyone else involved did an excellent job of maintaining the vast majority of the DIE HARD tone so that this 4th installment still felt very much like a real DIE HARD movie. In fact, while I enjoyed both of the previous sequels, in spite of their imperfections, I totally agree with Bruce that this one is a lot closer to being on par with the original than parts 2 and 3.<br />
<br />
I don't really understand people who refuse to see this movie or who want to pay for a ticket to a different movie and then sneak in to this one. Does it suck that they slapped a PG-13 rating on this movie? Of course it does. But even that can't stop this movie from being the most entertaining film to hit theaters this summer. Just like everyone else, I'd prefer if the next one was R from the start, but you know what? I'd rather the next one be PG-13 again and then get the Unrated DVD treatment again than not get a 5th one at all. Even with a PG-13 rating I enjoyed this more than pretty much anything else I've seen at the theater this year and more than any action movie I've seen in ages. I'd be happy to be this entertained again for a 5th installment and then still have the treat of the unrated DVD to look forward to. I much prefer the extended DVD edition of LoTR, but that didn't stop from going to and enjoying the theatrical versions too.<br />
<br />
I think the box office take will have a lot to do with the getting a 5th greenlighted, but I think sales for the unrated DVD of this one will be what has more of an impact on what rating the next film gets from the start. If you're going to avoid spending money on something, I'd think it would more worthwhile to boycott the PG-13 DVD release and just buy the unrated one ... assuming there will be a PG-13 DVD release.<br />
<br />
Anyway, bottom line is that this movie is a hell of a lot of fun and more than worth the price of admission. It's the best action movie to hit theaters in ages. I went alone the day after it came out, I'm going again with my wife tomorrow, I'm probably going again later in the week with a friend, and I'm going to be going with my Dad when we get a chance, because we went to see DHWaV in theaters 12 years ago. Just go and stop ragging on it before you see it. And when its done and the action has kicked your ass in spite of your concerns, you'll know that you still have an unrated DVD version to look forward to, which is exactly what I'm waiting for.

I also agree with Bruce about it being interesting what they do with his trademark tagline.<br />
<br />
The use of "Yippy Kiyay Mother-F#@$er" in the original was awesome because it totally fit into the context of the discussion he was having with Hans at the time. The use of it at the end of the 2nd movie was OK because it was kind of an acknowledgment of the irony of this insane type of situation happening to the same guy twice ... at the same time of year no less. But the use in the third movie just seemed kinda pointless and it was only there because it was his tagline ... like he had some kind of contractual obligation to say it every time he killed the main bad guy. In this fourth movie, its use is finally back in a worthwhile context that takes advantage of the fact that he's said it in all the previous movies ... even if there wasn't really a point in saying it those two other times (or at least even if there wasn't a point in saying it in the third movie, if you go for that irony explanation for its use in the second one). The fact of the matter is that I didn't even mind them cutting it off in this one, because the interruption wasn't just a gunshot (SPOILER ALERT ------>) but the fact that John couldn't actually finish the statement clearly because of the pain of the bullet passing through him (<------ SPOILER ALERT).<br />
<br />
If there is a 5th one - which I heard on the radio today they were already supposedly discussing - I actually kind hope that they don't include the tagline ... unless they find another good contextual way to put it in.

The end of the last post should have said:
If they do end up making a 5th one - which I heard on the radio today they were already supposedly discussing with the studio - I actually kinda hope they leave the tagline out ... unless they can find another good contextual way of fitting it in.

...and I enjoyed it even more than the first ... partly because I wasn't sitting there worrying the whole time that it was about to start sucking. I think that may actually be the biggest negative effect the PG-13 rating had on this movie: not that it made it not kick ass, but that it made you WORRIED the whole time that it wasn't going to kick ass. It caused this kind of persistent threat of imminent suckiness. But knowing it was going to be good allowed me to just sit back and relax and get carried away, and that made me like it even more than the first time around.<br />
<br />
And, by the way, the action sequences definitely hold up the second time around ... (SPOILER AHEAD) especially the brief fight John has at woodlawn with the henchman that sneaks up behind him and Matt that ends with the henchman at the bottom of some stairs. That one just had a brutal feeling to it.(SPOILER BEHIND)<br />
<br />
Wiseman did a really good job with the action in this movie. He gave it a real visceral feeling. Anyone who has been holding off should go see this movie. Theaters were still packed for all showings at my local multiplex tonight. In fact, I think they all sold out. The 9:45 PM show was sold out an hour in advance where we went. We had to get tickets for the 10:25 PM show and were first in line, but after a few minutes the line stretched way down the hall and the entire theater was full within about 45 seconds of opening the doors.

There was action. A lot of action. But where was the suspense? There wasn't any dread. Not very good storytelling. And what is with chasing a car in a truck, then getting attacted by a jet fighter and then defeating it by jumping on it, and then you stand up and the car you were chasing is crossing the intersection right infront of you?

...the only sequence that got a bit much was (SPOILER) the invincible lorry getting blown to shit and climbing almost vertical walls (END SPOILER)-that could've been toned down a bit, but on the whole I really enjoyed it.

(PLENTY OF SPOILERS AHEAD)
John didn't defeat the fighter jet by jumping on it. He jumped out of the cab of the truck and into the trailer as a piece of the freeway was falling on the cab. He then rolled down the trailer, which was hanging almost vertically. When he finally fell out the doors of the trailer, a big piece of freeway concrete fell out behind him and landed on some sensitive part of the jet, causing a fire. The pilot lost control, the plane started spinning, and the tail of the jet hit John and knocked him from the trailer door and onto the jet (in other words, he didn't JUMP onto the jet, he was trying to hang onto the door but got hit and FELL onto the jet).<br />
<br />
When John jumped off the on-fire-and-about-to-explode jet and onto the freeway, it's actually not too far fetched that he could have made it through that fall without being hurt too bad. Yes, it was a big fall, looked close to 20 feet, but he landed on an extremely tilted surface covered in loose stones, which means he would have hit and immediately started sliding (rather than skidding or flipping), which would have taken away most of the impact.<br />
<br />
Now, don't get me wrong ... that scene was certainly over the top, but if you're going to suspend your disbelief, that fall doesn't stretch it that much. He would have been more likely to be out for the count when Maggie Q kicked him out the window in the power plant and he smacked, back-first, into every pipe on the way down.<br />
<br />
As for the van he was following being at the next intersection ... it wasn't. It pulled into a warehouse or hangar of some sort that was right near to where the fighter jet stuff went down. The bad guys were almost at their destination when they had the fighter jet attack John. They had to drive around to get to it with their van. He was able to walk across the field to get there.

All told, a terrific night out. Doesn't compare to the first one - what does? - and hardly plausible, but then neither were the other sequels. Or the original, come to think of it. (McClane managing to grab the air duct in the lift shaft? Fuck RIGHT off!) But great fun in a way that seems to have eluded virtually everyone else this summer.

Hi, I'm new on this Site, and since I'm not sure where to Post, I'll do it here.
Live Free or Die Hard was the best one of the series, even though there are not as many swear words, and the Yippie-ki-yey seemed incomplete.
I saw this one twice in theaters, and I personally reccomend it to anyone who is a Die Hard Fan.
If Bruce Willis ever gets this, then I want him to know how much I appreciate him making Live Free or Die Hard, and hope he returns yet again as John McClane to make Die Hard 5.